Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: John S Mosby
and btw, eminent domain is quite truly NOT Constitutional).

All eminent domain? You may disagree with the Kelo decision but according to SCOTUS eminent domain is Constitutional and it has been around since the founding of the Republic.

The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.[4] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose," "public interest", or "public benefit".

The Fifth Amendment includes the Public Use Clause and the Takings Clause. Some historians have suggested that these limitations on the taking power were inspired by the need to permit the army to secure mounts, fodder and provisions from local ranchers and the perceived need to assure them compensation for such takings. Similarly, soldiers forcibly sought housing in whatever homes were near their military assignments. To address the latter problem, the Third Amendment was enacted in 1791 as part of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. It provided that the quartering of soldiers on private property could not take place in peacetime without the landowner's consent. It also required that, in wartime, established law had to be followed in housing troops on private property. Presumably, this would mandate "just compensation," a requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in general per the Fifth Amendment. All U.S. states have legislation specifying eminent domain procedures within their respective territories.

The power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This power reposes in the legislative branch of the government and may not be exercised unless the legislature has authorized its use by statutes that specify who may use it and for what purposes. The legislature may take private property by passing an Act transferring title to the government. The property owner may then seek compensation by suing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals for the purpose of acquiring access to their landlocked land. Its use was limited by the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment did not create the national government's right to use the eminent domain power, it simply limited it to public use.

233 posted on 02/23/2016 10:33:51 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies ]


To: kabar

Kelo was a travesty. Will not go into names, but the principals involved in pulling this stunt are well known to my firm, including the “community” effort leaders which were a front. So, an entire neighborhood of New London was destroyed to make room for a “job rich” industrial expansion.... that never happened. In fact the research campus closed up and LEFT. The company involved the biggest player in obamaumaocare cost shifting to the taxpayer to drive universal healthcare and crony capitalism by “partnering” with fedgov to be the prime vendor for contracts. And NOW— wants to move to Dublin, from NYC after over 100 years.
This was NOT, ever, a “public use” condemnation. It was manipulative lying crap. Just like casinos in Atlantic City, same kind of crap. Railroads out West— OK get that, and the greater public need for transport infrastructure. But a private company leveling a neighborhood with no more than dangling promises and crony money from the municipality does NOT qualify. It never should have been ruled so- and imho the court was bought (and not for the first time by this company).


265 posted on 02/24/2016 4:59:15 PM PST by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson