Comments on: Eminent Domain Abuse?

By: Jazz

Jazz — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:59:01 +0000

It's a valid entry from what I've learned, and could even apply to things such as food and temporary shelter (which crosses over into the whole harboring troops thing) but in the moden era, I think we would have to say that real property accounts for all but a few items.

By: onleyone

onleyone — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:47:19 +0000

here's the wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

funny, i had no idea that eminent domain could be exercised outside of "real" property; i took a couple classes in public lands law, guess real estate is kind of the focus there.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:40:22 +0000

Definitely exercised by the states, not the feds, except in a few extreme cases I found of people “squatting” on federal property declared as a fed wilderness area. But, of course, the appeals process has always held beyond State to the feds for questions if challenged since it is inherited from the Fifth. Absolutely true, what you say, though, that the state is the entity empowered to actually *exercise* it in most cases. The Kelo case was only remarkable for the precedent it set in allowing other states in the future to claim the public purpose clause.

By: onleyone

onleyone — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:40:16 +0000

from what i've found online, it looks like originally a power of any sovereign body, but the 5th amendment incorporated it into the constitution so as to allow for those cases where the federal sovereign chose to exercise that power.

By: onleyone

onleyone — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:36:20 +0000

okay, makes sense. but is the power to condemn property invested in the state and granted by the feds? isn't it usually state governments or their proxies that exercise it? if i recall, there was a state only a short while ago passed an act that limited its powers of eminent domain.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:31:21 +0000

Actually the principle of eminent domain is Federal in nature and comes from the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Such questions were what allowed the case of Kelo to be taken to the supremes and for them to accept the case rather than tossing it back to Connecticut on the grounds that it was outside the pervue of the Feds as a state matter.

Kelo famously replaced "public use" with the new term of "public purpose."

By: Jazz

Jazz — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:30:39 +0000

Actually the principle of eminent domain is Federal in nature and comes from the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Such questions were what allowed the case of Kelo to be taken to the supremes and for them to accept the case rather than tossing it back to Connecticut on the grounds that it was outside the pervue of the Feds as a state matter.

Kelo famously replaced "public use" with the new term of "public purpose."

By: onleyone

onleyone — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:22:20 +0000

well, from what i know of the (common?) law, eminent domain has been a power of the state since way back. wouldn't a solution to this most likely come out of a legislative body?

By: Jazz

Jazz — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:22:14 +0000

It would be interesting to see which candidate wanted to champion this cause. Kelo s. New London should have been a lesson to us all. Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Conner (considered by some to be an odd matchup) were the ones arguing against that abomination, while Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer passed it. It was the seal of approval to replace the idea of “public use” with “public purpose” which neatly re-wrote the constittion in one fell swoop. Which side would Obama and McCain take on this? The public howls against it, so who takes which side?

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:25:12 +0000

A candidate should hit on this, I think. While the outrage at eminent domain has calmed down a bit lately, it's not that far below the surface. It's also an issue that isn't clearly conservative or liberal but grabs a peculiar cross-section of voters.

By: onleyone

onleyone — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:10:36 +0000

wasn't the taking of Pole Town (in detroit, i believe) another particularly notorious example (tho further back in time)? at the time, it was the largest polish community outside of poland, if i'm not mistaken.

By: Market My Life - An experiment in making money online » Starting List

Market My Life - An experiment in making money online » Starting List — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:01:53 +0000

[...] Eminent Domain Abuse? [...]

By: lotusflwr

lotusflwr — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:46:05 +0000

The Supreme Court has consistently eroded the rights of the average citizen to own property, subverting it to the whims of local and state governments. It happens everywhere and is only getting worse. I am never surprised at the ridiculous things that happen to people when eminent domain is invoked.

Sadly the only lesson that can be taken from these situations is that if it happens to you, only bother to lawyer up early on and only so you can hold out long enough to get a good offer from the government, then take the money and run.. because your odds of winning in court are nil.