[Aramike]

But you seem to be arguing that that decision should be made to go away by other than legal means. That you haven't said something directly is a good fallback when someone contests, it, but now you're saying you didn't mean what everyone assumes you meant. Blame me for that if you like, but at the very least you weren't very clear on where you were going with your argument.

No, I've said, very clearly several times that the board should reconsider its decision, and my argument was the it was not unConstitutional for that reconsidering to occur.

On the other hand, failing the board doing that, my argument is verysimple: their decision was wrong.

And now you misunderstand what I've been trying to say. Earlier you thanked me for agreeing that the state and local laws supercede the Constitution, but failed to see that I pointed out that the Constitution makes that so.

This is a local matter, yes, but you seem to feel that the Federal courts should order it to change, which is where the Constitutional arguments come in.

Apparently neither of us are understanding one another completely and are perhaps framing our arguments through the lens of that misunderstanding, because in some way we're saying the same thing.

Do I believe the Federal courts should order this to change? I wish they could, but I see no legal grounds for doing so.

In any case, I stand by that this is not a Constitutional issue - by your definition, ultimately every municiple issue would ultimately be considered that, and for practical purposes while the extension is certainly valid, it is pointless.

Fair enough, and I don't disagree on that. But if they don't reconsider it someone else has to do it for them, and that involves the Feds, and that involves the Constitution. And if you're going to cite "caselaw", please show some of the cases involved.

I'll cite cases later when I have some more time. If you wish to find some quickly, Google "US Euclidean Zoning court challenges". Emminent domain would also be relevant.