Posted on 04/10/2017 6:21:26 AM PDT by cba123
(this is pretty good)
Please click to the link, for the article.
Includes a video.
(Excerpt) Read more at mystatesman.com ...
What a joke. They can accept payment for the land or have it confiscated; either way BUILD THE WALL.
I like that!!
What a joke. They can accept payment for the land or have it confiscated; either way BUILD THE WALL.
“Good, build the wall so it funnels illegals through his property. He’ll come around.”
Lol! :)
Best argument for eminent domain I can think of.
After already backing off of certain aspects i’d be surprised if the wall gets built at all...
Hell, we have every branch of Gov and we STILL cant repeal Zero Care!!
I have property that was split by a road and the telephone, power, water, sewage whatever can do anything the want along the easement.
It doesn’t always seem fair, but it is what it is. Build the damn wall!
Repeal and REPLACE Obamacare.
:D
Repeal and replace.
Fool who wrote the article knows little or nothing about Eminent Domain.
Yes, such cases can drag on for years, but unless a very rare issue is presented, such as it was in Bridgeport, CT, the actual taking of the property is not the triable issue.
The triable issue is the amount of compensation for the property seized under Eminent Domain; how much the government will pay to the person from whom the property has been taken.
The taking almost always occurs very quickly, so as not to inhibit the project. And yes, the courts understand the taking may well have significant negative impact on those from whom the property is taken. The impact can be present or future, monetary of emotional, etc.
That’s why the price paid for the taking is often more than just the raw cost of the taken land.
But the monetary compensation issue will not slow construction of the wall. It will only affect the final price of the project.
How many divisions do open borders people have?
We are on the brink of war.
There are zero fence sitters.
With a wall their land would be worth money again
Some Republicans falsely have that R beside their name when it really should be a D.
This is all about the money—these greedy bastards were crying and bitching about trespassers from Mexico littering their beautiful barren landscape transporting drugs, criminals and what ever across their parched dry tumble weed cactus patch a few weeks ago. Now they see dollars from American tax payers. I voted twice for dumb ass “W” simply because he was best of two choices but never supported the Bush family globalism.
I;ve never seen a party BE the majority... but ACT like the minority!!
“Sorry, but in a post-Kelo United States, private property is not an obstacle for anything.”
Almost certainly landowners and various activist groups will attempt to stop the construction of the wall in federal court. If anything they’ll try to delay it until the 2020 elections when they will be attempting to put a Democrat in office who will stop the wall the same way Trump approved the Keystone pipeline.
The Kelo decision doesn’t really apply here. Kelo speaks to the government using its power of eminent domain to take land for private purposes, something the founding fathers clearly intended to prevent when they wrote the Constitution. Kelo was wrongly decided if one reads the letter of the Constitution as well as the opinions of those who wrote the Constitution.
The wall does not pertain to the seizing of private property to give the property to another private person or company. For the wall the government will be taking private property for public use. The Constitution’s only restriction on the taking of property for public purposes is the government must compensate the property owner for the property seized. To restrict the federal government’s use of imminent domain to take border property for the construction of a wall to protect the nation from invasion, the court would be creating new law.
It is possible a leftist federal district judge will stop the wall on environmental grounds. However, the Constitution has a number of significant roadblocks for courts to prevent the wall from being built. Congress and the president create and administer immigration law under the Constitution. The president is responsible for national security. The Constitution does not give court jurisdiction over national security, immigration or international trade. Any wayward federal judge who used environmental law, or a civil rights claim by foreigners, would almost certainly be overturned by a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court.
Could be that that friend of the Bushes is in on the drug running?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy9a-hk4Ev4
Just build the Wall so their property is on the Mexico side of the wall.
The Kikapoo people just got their 118 acres in 1983. There’s less than 500 of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.