|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:14 pm
One of the bedrocks of a free society is a system of private property. The concept of economic liberty is founded not only on principles of free enterprise but also on the principle that people have the right to accumulate the fruits of their earnings. If government has the power to arbitarily seize a perspn's wealth or property, then a person cannot truly be considered free in an economic sense.
Discuss,
1- eminent domain
2- is it a violation of the constitution?
3- do you consider it fair?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:50 pm
The greatest blog in the world made a point about aeminent domain right hereBut the fact that I linked you isnt gonna stop me from posting all or most of the whole thing here, because I need the gold that a long post will give me. Quote: A plaugue runs through America, Australia England, Canada and South Africa. Some call it compulsory purchase, others still expropriation. But you and I know it for what it is, theft. I'm afraid Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens and Breyer have failed us. Not in stopping another cuckoo wacko-a** idea that scalia or renqhist tried to push, for, if you missed it, i just named a majority of five. Kelo V. New London means that, for any reason they want to the government can take your land and give it to someone else. Oh, wait, I forgot, they have to give you "appropriate" compensation. At least the indians got the casinos and Peyote. After all, peyote rules. (continues at the D2Nation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:56 pm
Not a violation of the constitution by itself, no. See, it's provided for by the fifth amendment - the whole "just compensation" thing. (Which also satisfies the, you know, "due process of law" thing.)
Uses of eminent domain can be unconstitutional, however. And I would say that most such uses are. (The city declaring a family home "blighted" so that commercial developers can use the land, for example.) That's the problem with providing the government with authority to do things in emergencies; they get to thinking that they can do it any old time, and that tends to be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:05 am
it has become a problem. The governtment has twisted the purpose of eminent domain. It was once exclusive for very desperate situations, but know it can be used "for the benefit of the public"; making a 70 year old man pack up his things and give his 50 acres away so that a wal-mart can be built there... thats retarded.
Sure he was given "just compensation", the government gave him what he paid for his property. But he was old and near the end of his life. He just wanted to live on the land that had been in his family for many generations. (i dont have a source for that, i read about it in the newspaper.)
Its situations like that and others where eminent domain is not fair. Sure life is not fair, but our government is supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:10 am
While the "public use" and "just compensation" limitations serve as a check on the power of eminent domain, over time the power has increasingly been abused, especially with respect to the concept of "public use". In an era of confiscation and redistribution of wealth through the welfare-state functions of governmment, public officials have increasingly expanded the meaning of "public use" to the point where they are now using the power of eminent domain to take one person's property in order to give it to another person albeit be paying "just compensation" to the original owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:14 am
Lost in all this "public use" controversy is a fundamental question: Why should government have the power of eminent domain anyway? If it needs a piece of property, why shouldn't the government officials be expected to negotiate for its purchase, just as everyone else does? If someone refuses to sell, then the government can simply go and purchase its property elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:28 pm
Taking away private property for private companies is the problem. Big companies can lobby to get their way which means that politicians are not in charge of the country big companies are. Most people are too ignorant to know what their supporting whent they shop somewhere so the people aren't in charge anymore and its their own damn fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:54 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:58 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:30 am
blue_odessy The only problem with this is that a shopping mall can be considered for "public use". Well, no, it can't. It's a private use of the land - it will belong to the owner of that shopping mall, it will be used for purposes of that mall's business, and all benefits to the public are secondary to that primary use - a private business use. Quote: It creates jobs, attracts business to a certain area, and helps the economy. That's where I take issue with the Supreme Court's decision on the matter, though. "Public benefit" and "public use" are not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
