NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to show that Ted Turner debaters aren't the only ones who can crib their knowledge off of the clueless internet community, I am soliciting any info you may have on the next LD topic: eminent domain.

What I need is a nice, succint justification for eminent domain, preferably one linked to justice in some abstract way. Some info on where the idea came from would also be useful. Most searches point to a Dutch guy named Hugo Grotius, but don't say what logic he based his ideas on. Such information would be helpful, and commentary by anyone familiar with either Hugo or eminent domain would be greatly appreciated.

The one thing I don't want in this thread is a bunch of rants about how the government is stealing private property. I don't care why you think its bad, I want to know why the government thinks it can get away with it.

Just to show that Ted Turner debaters aren't the only ones who can crib their knowledge off of the clueless internet community, I am soliciting any info you may have on the next LD topic: eminent domain.

What I need is a nice, succint justification for eminent domain, preferably one linked to justice in some abstract way. Some info on where the idea came from would also be useful. Most searches point to a Dutch guy named Hugo Grotius, but don't say what logic he based his ideas on. Such information would be helpful, and commentary by anyone familiar with either Hugo or eminent domain would be greatly appreciated.

The one thing I don't want in this thread is a bunch of rants about how the government is stealing private property. I don't care why you think its bad, I want to know why the government thinks it can get away with it.

There was a case of it in San Jose California awhile back. A 90 year old woman had about 10 acres of which the city wanted. They argued for housing and job growth. They offered nothing of course and she refused so they began a legal fight to wipe her out with the court costs(she didn't have much money). I spoke to the reporter and he felt she was going to lose because nobody cared.

Don't know what happened.

If I remember right ED was used to build the phil graham music park in Moutain View California. It was a low-income area so it didn't get much attention.

Don't know the legalese but those are two examples.....

That's not nice to make fun of Teddy. Who else is going to pay our UN dues?

I would justify eminent domain as a legitimate tool of government when the property in question is required to provide a public service. Dams and highways come to mind immediately. Condos and office parks don't.

There was a case of it in San Jose California awhile back. A 90 year old woman had about 10 acres of which the city wanted. They argued for housing and job growth. They offered nothing of course and she refused so they began a legal fight to wipe her out with the court costs(she didn't have much money). I spoke to the reporter and he felt she was going to lose because nobody cared.

Don't know what happened.

If I remember right ED was used to build the phil graham music park in Moutain View California. It was a low-income area so it didn't get much attention.

Don't know the legalese but those are two examples.....

Yeah...hoping less for negative examples and more for positive justifications. This stuff is vaguely helpful, but there are examples all over the place. I'm more interested in the concepts behind them.

That's not nice to make fun of Teddy. Who else is going to pay our UN dues?

I would justify eminent domain as a legitimate tool of government when the property in question is required to provide a public service. Dams and highways come to mind immediately. Condos and office parks don't.

The question, though, is why does a government have said tool in the first place? Why should a government be allowed to take people's property, even for austensibly good and public purposes?

Orginally Eminent Domain was the ability for the Government to buy out land if it is needed for the greater good. Like the Property that the Interstates are currently built on, or the land on the river that was forcefully bought because they were putting a Hydroelectric Dam and the land was going to go underwater. Water Treatment plants, government complexs, Military bases etc. They were the orginal reason why there was Eminent Domain. But now...

Eminent Domain has become the corporate Last resort when they want the land, using underhanded tactics to have government officials to declare Eminent Domain citing that putting the business (The Corporation) there is for the 'Greater Good' of the Town due to taxes or some other thing. It's the usual abuse of a government Right by corrupt Government officials.

The question, though, is why does a government have said tool in the first place? Why should a government be allowed to take people's property, even for austensibly good and public purposes?
This sounds exactly like my first answer. Don't you think the purpose is so that the government can take property that it needs for a public purpose? Without that ability, a single landowner could keep extremely beneficial projects from being developed.

This sounds exactly like my first answer. Don't you think the purpose is so that the government can take property that it needs for a public purpose? Without that ability, a single landowner could keep extremely beneficial projects from being developed.
I agree. Another simple answer to his question is that the power of eminent domain is provided for in the Constitution, which in a legal manner, is the only justification needed, at least in the US.

Let's borrow something from the Cato Institute. It appears that eminent domain arises from a social contract that exists between us and the government. Although it is inherently illegitimate, we agree to it anyway so the government can provide public services at a reasonable cost.

Granted, this is just an opinion piece, but it's somewhere to start that's more in line with your original question.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp090705.html

Like the police power, the eminent domain power too is nowhere found in the Constitution. It is said to be an "inherent" power of government, yet unlike the police power, no one enjoys the power of eminent domain in the state of nature and hence no one has it to yield up to government when government is created. Indeed, there could hardly be any such inherent power in the state of nature, for it is a power to take what belongs to another, albeit with just compensation, but against his will and hence in violation of his inherent right to be left alone in his life, liberty, and property.7 For that reason it was known as the "despotic power." Thus, unlike the police power, the eminent domain power is inherently illegitimate.

Such legitimacy as the power enjoys stems, therefore, from two sources. First, although none of us had the eminent domain power to yield up to government, we agreed all the same, through the social contract we drafted in the original position (the Constitution), to let government exercise that power so that it might provide us with "public goods" at a reasonable cost. Yet even then the power was recognized only implicitly, in the Fifth Amendment, in connection with the explicit limits on its exercise that are set forth in the Takings Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." By implication, government may take private property, but only for a public purpose, and only with just compensation. (Note too that eminent domain is merely an instrumental power, exercised in service of some other power—the power to build roads, forts, schools, and the like.) Second, as a practical matter, the power exists to enable public projects to go forward without being held hostage to holdouts seeking to exploit the situation by extracting far more than just compensation. When properly used, therefore, eminent domain protects the individual from being exploited for the public good, but it protects the public from being exploited as well.

Thus, the best that can be said for eminent domain is this: the power was ratified by those who were in the original position, the founding generation; and it is ''Pareto superior,'' as economists say, which means that at least one party (the public) is made better off by its use while no one is made worse off—provided the owner does indeed receive just compensation. In virtue of its inherent illegitimacy, however, there must be a strong presumption against its use. Thus, if property can be acquired through voluntary means, our principles as a nation urge us to take that course. Only if necessary should governments resort to this despotic power.

I agree. Another simple answer to his question is that the power of eminent domain is provided for in the Constitution, which in a legal manner, is the only justification needed, at least in the US.
My next post makes eminent domain sound like a sleazy addition that was thrown in just so government could function.

I need to clarify--the words eminent domain aren't in the Constitution. This explanation is from Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html):
'The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.'' 160 Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.'' 161 In the early years of the nation the federal power of eminent domain lay dormant, 162 and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States 163 any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any State.

This sounds exactly like my first answer. Don't you think the purpose is so that the government can take property that it needs for a public purpose? Without that ability, a single landowner could keep extremely beneficial projects from being developed.

The issue I'm having is that this only works if the land can actually be shown to be taken for the public good. This is tough to prove. What would be more helpful is some sort of inherent justification as to why governments have this degree of power over citizens in the first place. While this sort of stuff is less likely to be present in the Constitution, eminent domain has a rather extensive pre-US origin that extends into feudal times. What I'm looking for is the sort of justification used then for government confiscation of property.

I need to clarify--the words eminent domain aren't in the Constitution. This explanation is from Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html):

This is an example of what I'm talking about: WHY is eminent domain an inherent feature of sovreignty? What makes it something that every government can do?

The issue I'm having is that this only works if the land can actually be shown to be taken for the public good. This is tough to prove. What would be more helpful is some sort of inherent justification as to why governments have this degree of power over citizens in the first place. While this sort of stuff is less likely to be present in the Constitution, eminent domain has a rather extensive pre-US origin that extends into feudal times. What I'm looking for is the sort of justification used then for government confiscation of property.
I think you're on the right track. When you look at the synonym of 'despotic power', eminent domain has been around for a long time. Probably since the King owned everything in the kingdom. The practice seems to have evolved from just taking the property, to an attempt to compensate fairly, back to just taking again, but it's certainly been around for a while. I'm afraid I'm not going to be much more help. You'd probably do better with Google.

This is an example of what I'm talking about: WHY is eminent domain an inherent feature of sovreignty? What makes it something that every government can do?
As Myrmidonisia said above, it's a part of the social contract. As citizens, we give up certain freedoms when we consent to be governed because it makes for a more stable society. Part of that deal is that we cede to the government the right to take private property, in this case with compensation, when necessary to benefit the greater good. The argument is always over whether the compensation is ample or whether the greater good is indeed being served, but the right is inherent.

Psssh, LD. Policy is clearly better.

Psssh, LD. Policy is clearly better.

I just occasionally like to have a debate that doesn't involve nuclear war. Can you blame me?

As Myrmidonisia said above, it's a part of the social contract. As citizens, we give up certain freedoms when we consent to be governed because it makes for a more stable society. Part of that deal is that we cede to the government the right to take private property, in this case with compensation, when necessary to benefit the greater good. The argument is always over whether the compensation is ample or whether the greater good is indeed being served, but the right is inherent.

The social contract model is nice for this sort of thing, but one of the problems I find in using it is that it establishes both the government's ability to take rights and the government's responsibility to protect rights. This would work if there were an actual written contract that said what rights we're giving up vs. retaining, but there isn't, so there's no way to prove that property in cases of eminent domain is a right sacrificed or a right retained.

I just occasionally like to have a debate that doesn't involve nuclear war. Can you blame me?
Yes, duh. Plus, we keep beating people on "fear of nuclear weapons bad." People often don't read nuke wars against us anymore. Problem solved.

Yes, duh. Plus, we keep beating people on "fear of nuclear weapons bad." People often don't read nuke wars against us anymore. Problem solved.

That's the main fun thing about policy: it changes, often based on really really annoying arguments. My main reason for doing LD is I'm far too lazy to actually do my own research. Why do you think I started this thread?

That's the main fun thing about policy: it changes, often based on really really annoying arguments. My main reason for doing LD is I'm far too lazy to actually do my own research. Why do you think I started this thread?
Eh, fair enough. The research burden in policy is quite heavy. But beating people is so gratifying!

The clear argument for eminent domain is economic. If I want to build a road, I have to buy out all the property owners whose land lies in the path of my road. If I have 99% of the landowners cooperating, the remaining 1% can "hold out" to drive up my priice. They can do this not because their property is worth it by itself, but because if I have to move the road, my 99% worth of agreement is lost...I have to start at square one with completely different land owners.

Secondarily, many people refuse to seel based on NIMBY attitudes. If I want to build a city garbage dump in your backyard, you won't willingly sell to me (even if the dump itself is plainly beneficial to everyone.

In order to prevent people from gouging or otherwise interfereing with government projects in the public good, the state has the right to expropriate land (and other necessary assets).

The problem is: railroads. In the 19th centrury railroad companies needed tracks laid and stations built and ran into the same problems as government...holdout gouging and NIMBY based holdouts. The other problem was that railroads were just *so* damned beneficial to the nation as a whole, governments were tripping over themselves to clear the holdouts out of the way. The problem is that railroads were *privately* owners "for profit" businesses and the eminent domain power had never been used for private gains before (no matter how great the public side benefits). (The distinction some would draw is between taking property for a "public use" (like building a road) and for "public benefit".)

Once that precedent was set, the law shifted to give government a great deal of leeway in determining what was a sufficient "public benefit" to justify the use of the power. The courts suck at determining whether there's a "real" benefit or if the local government is simply trying to benefit a political contributor--in fact there has never been a case where there was clear evidence that a local government was "merely" trying to benefot a political contributor. So, in Kelo, the Supreme Court decided that federal courts should defer to the judgement of local government (i.e. federalism) unless there was really clear evidence of a misuse of power (with mere disagreement with the amount of the public benefit not being enough).

Once that precedent was set, the law shifted to give government a great deal of leeway in determining what was a sufficient "public benefit" to justify the use of the power.

This is the problem: these justifications still require the cause to be the "public benefit", and proving that is very difficult no matter who you leave with the decision. What would be more helpful is some sort of general justification of eminent domain itself besides the issue of whether or not it is for the public good.

You can try looking at it this way, a nation consists of a chunk of land under someone's reconition. Goverments not only make society stable, but they also provide for common defence. The two go hand in hand with property in that the goverment works to make sure that rude strangers don't come by and take your property or that rude contrymen don't cheat you out of it either (thus is the military and justice systems).

Countries also have borders though, so technically all land within those borders belongs to the goverment, and through the goverment, the people (in a republic or democracy). The goverment can sell the land within the borders of the country of course, but in the begining and end, it belongs to the country (before land is bought, and after the deed laps).

Taking Nazz's social contract, you get the idea of people giving up certain rights in exchange for protection of life and property. ED comes into play by virtue of the goverment exercizing the obligations of goverment to revert the land to orginal ownership, i.e. the goverment's.

Still disagree with the idea that ED works for hotels and shopping centers though.

Wikipedida actually has a useful write-up and summary on eminent domain and its history.

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

findlaw also has some useful summary

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

The issue I'm having is that this only works if the land can actually be shown to be taken for the public good. This is tough to prove. What would be more helpful is some sort of inherent justification as to why governments have this degree of power over citizens in the first place. While this sort of stuff is less likely to be present in the Constitution, eminent domain has a rather extensive pre-US origin that extends into feudal times. What I'm looking for is the sort of justification used then for government confiscation of property.

Again this goes back to theories of why we have government at all and what inherent rights we have.

One could well argue your right to property is valueless unless government exists to protect it. To protect your right to property and other rights, you surrender a degree of power to government. This includes the right to eminent domain.

Of course in feudal times you didn't have a damn choice.

Psssh, LD. Policy is clearly better.

At least at the college level, only LD is understandable.

At the high school level, you are correct.

This is the problem: these justifications still require the cause to be the "public benefit", and proving that is very difficult no matter who you leave with the decision. What would be more helpful is some sort of general justification of eminent domain itself besides the issue of whether or not it is for the public good.

What other justification is needed? A government that lacks the power to enact policies for the general welfare at the expense of any individual citizen is, in effect, no government at all. By contrast, a government that does have that power, and exercises it judiciously, is one that not only is a government in every sense of the word, but one that makes will make the lives of its citizens better as well.

That last sentence, I believe, contains the crux of what is in effect a non sequitur in your thinking: you are confusing the idea that because sometimes eminent domain is a power of government that is not used judiciously, is therefore inherently unjust and could theoretically be replaced. This does not follow, because it seems much more pragmatically beneficial, as well as logical, that what is really needed is not an abolition of eminent domain, but a replacement of the people who use it for nonjudicious ends.

I'm not interested enough to adctual find good blurbs for you, but these appear to be useful sources.

This Land is Our Land
News: Why eminent domain is nothing to fear -- so long as its abuses can be curbed. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/03/kelo_eminent_domain.html)

http://ohioline.osu.edu/als-fact/1000.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/10/myths-and-reality-of-eminent-domain.php

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html

http://usatoday.realestate.findlaw.com/homeownership/home-land-use-zoning/home-land-use-zoning-eminent-domain.html

http://www.dcist.com/archives/2005/05/25/stare_dceisis_great_moments_in_dc_legal_history.php

(The above points out that we owe urban planning, schools, highways, parks, libraries, etc. to eminent domain.)

hey, sorry I just read the first post and not the rest, so I might be repeating something.

I do L-D also so I sort of know what you need. On the Aff I would check out and find evidence from Locke and maybe Thomas Jefferson. It's not US specific so it's a bit more open ended so if you use thomas Jefferson, be sure to use more international examples as well.

The obvious Value is Justice in this case so the battle will be how you achieve justice. The aff wants to argue that eminent domain takes away private property and is wrong. They also need to talk about how this is stepping beyond what the government should do and how it's a potential slippery slope asif they can take this person's land what prevents them from taking all our land, etc. etc. (but watch out with slippery slope because you need good evidence with it. then again you sound like a seasoned debator so you prob. know that :) )

On the neg you're going to talk about how much it benefits society. Maybe a criterion of societal welfare? talk utilitarianism. sure one person gets moved off, but this benefits 100 people so it's worth it. and finally explore the idea that the ends justify the means.

I think on Aff you're going to be more philisophical and on how things SHOULD be, and neg you'll be more realistic and talk about how things are and the benefits it can be to society.

I don't know if I'll check this thread again, so PM me if you want to talk about it more. :)

I may be mistaken, and I also believe the idea I'm about to present has already been explored, but I'd like to note that the concept of "owning" private property is, essentially, an oxymoron. For instance, all land within the United States, save that which the United Nations uses (and any other similar structures), is truly the property of the state. More or less, you rent that land from the government when you "purchase" the land. And, as in all cases of renting, the owner has the right to evict the rentor.

One can disagree with that last statement, but really, Eminent Domain is simply a tool that the government can utilize to reclaim the land from its rentors, the citizens. Even better, the rentor recieves payment for the land; in most cases, a rentor does not have even that luxury, so there's nothing inherently "unjust" with modern ED.

I want to know why the government thinks it can get away with it.

I wrote a literature review-like paper for a class on this very topic.

In the United States, there are essentially two basic camps: those who take a very strict intrepretation of the "public use" requirement of the Constitution so that the public must literally occupy and directly use any property seized by eminent domain, and those who take a very loose intrepretation of the "public use" requirement of the Constitution so that the public need only "benifit" in some manner without having to directly occupy and directly use the property in question.

The first camp would restrict uses of eminent domain to things like building roads and highways, schools, police/fire stations, actual government infrastructure and nothing more. The second camp would allow the use of eminent domain to transfer property to private entities, who would use it for their own profit, as this would benifit the economy, raise employment, raise property taxes as properties are put to "better" uses, etc.

At least at the college level, only LD is understandable.

At the high school level, you are correct.
Okay, I'm ignorant. What's LD?

Okay, I'm ignorant. What's LD?
I was hoping someone else would ask. :)

I was hoping someone else would ask. :)
My first thought was Learning Disabled, but that's only because I've been married to a special ed teacher for 23 years. Maybe that's the right answer?

My first thought was Learning Disabled, but that's only because I've been married to a special ed teacher for 23 years. Maybe that's the right answer?

Close. It stands for Lincoln-Douglas, and is a style of debate. Similar, though.

Anyway...what I'm getting from most of the stuff here is that the government has the power to take land because it is the only legitimate possessor of land. Effectively it's the feudal history of the term "eminent domain" put into a more modern context. While it makes sense on its own, I'm not sure how I would argue it vs. someone who was ranting about people's rights being taken away, etc. It would be a situation of two ships passing in the night. Maybe if I had some sort of stronger rhetoric, possibly with a liberal dose of rights-denial...hmmm...

BTW, Bamada: yes, I know that that's what everyone else will be saying, that's why I'm trying to avoid it. My general strategy is to avoid having to prove that what I'm advocating is actually good, as that task is often nigh-impossible and basically just comes down to an example war.

Close. It stands for Lincoln-Douglas, and is a style of debate. Similar, though.

Anyway...what I'm getting from most of the stuff here is that the government has the power to take land because it is the only legitimate possessor of land. Effectively it's the feudal history of the term "eminent domain" put into a more modern context. While it makes sense on its own, I'm not sure how I would argue it vs. someone who was ranting about people's rights being taken away, etc. It would be a situation of two ships passing in the night. Maybe if I had some sort of stronger rhetoric, possibly with a liberal dose of rights-denial...hmmm...

This is a hard proposition to argue for, especially if you accept the idea that the government only protects the rights of the people. The way the concept has evolved has been to put a sugar coating on a distasteful duty. If the government didn't have this power and property rights were truly secure, then the government would really have to deal with the owners and meet their prices. Or they could send out goons to terrorize the reluctant landowners until they gave in. I think the only arguments in favor of the concept is that it's proper application protects both the public and the private citizen from exploitation.

Just to show that Ted Turner debaters aren't the only ones who can crib their knowledge off of the clueless internet community, I am soliciting any info you may have on the next LD topic: eminent domain.

What I need is a nice, succint justification for eminent domain, preferably one linked to justice in some abstract way. Some info on where the idea came from would also be useful. Most searches point to a Dutch guy named Hugo Grotius, but don't say what logic he based his ideas on. Such information would be helpful, and commentary by anyone familiar with either Hugo or eminent domain would be greatly appreciated.

The one thing I don't want in this thread is a bunch of rants about how the government is stealing private property. I don't care why you think its bad, I want to know why the government thinks it can get away with it.

The problem with eminent domain isn't that it exists, but that it is abused. The Constitution provides for eminent domain in the last clause of the 5th ammendment. The problem is, over the past 50 or so years, governments have been fudging on the definitions of "public use" and "fair compensation." You aren't going to find many people who honestly don't believe that eminent domain shouldn't be used to build a school or a road when there is no other way to do it. Problems arrise when the government either

a) lowballs land value (i.e. only agrees to pay what the property was appraised for during the last tax session rather than pay the actual market value of a home or ignores other value concerns, like the existance of a buisness on a given property). An example of this kind of abuse can be found here http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=20020123133213

b) uses eminent domain as a first resort in order to save money (by taking less valuable property that is not for sale rather than more expensive property that is for sale next door) or in order to avoid having to bid for property an pay a higher market value. A good example of this kind of abuse is what the San Diego School District seems to be doing right now during it's expansion.

c) uses eminent domain to take private land and then turn it over to another private individual. The justification for such takings ususally has something to do with economic development or tax revenue. The arguments against these kinds of takings are legion and I'm sure you can find them all over so I won't bore you. A good example of this kind of abuse would be the Kelo v New London case.

If you're interested in arguing in favor of eminent domain you have two approaches. The first is to defend the process and argue that it has been maligned by the abusive actions of local governments. An easy fix to these abuses would be laws that provide specific criteria for eminent domain takings. Your second option is to argue a communist point of view and play up utilitarianism and the public good.

The question, though, is why does a government have said tool in the first place? Why should a government be allowed to take people's property, even for austensibly good and public purposes?

Because, without it, many necessary public works couldn't get done. In order for the basic jobs of a government to get done, some property is needed. Police stations, courts, jails, dams, schools, roads. In rural areas, theres always more land to build on, but in a congested area like a city, sometimes you don't have that choice. If a new police station needs to be built because a given community has grown and needs police nearby, your choices of building areas become limited. Roads are an even more important issue. Without the superhighway system, the American economy would not be seeing the growth it has seen since the end of the second world war. Even normal roads in urban areas are more important than you might realize. Try driving from point a to point b in Los Angeles and Chicago. In one you'll need a map, in the other you'll need directions with, at most, four right or left turns.

The issue I'm having is that this only works if the land can actually be shown to be taken for the public good. This is tough to prove. What would be more helpful is some sort of inherent justification as to why governments have this degree of power over citizens in the first place. While this sort of stuff is less likely to be present in the Constitution, eminent domain has a rather extensive pre-US origin that extends into feudal times. What I'm looking for is the sort of justification used then for government confiscation of property.

If thats your case, you're kinda outta luck, kid. The right to own private property is the basic building block of liberty in the west. All freedoms, essentially, flow from ownership. Being a free man basically means that no one but yourself can claim ownership over your body except in extreme cases (criminality and conscription). In America, the entire constitution, and all the rights contained within, are very closely tied to property rights. Freedom of conscience and speech don't just mean you can say or belive what you want, those freedoms are basic and necessary to maintain ownership over one's mind, over oneself as an individual. Attacks on property rights are the traditional domain of kings and tyrants, if you want to argue that the government has the natural authority for these takings, then you have to argue that all property is, ultimately, government property. Individuals are simply allowed, by their government, to reside on or use that property.

Such an argument, however, is a pretty clear violation of the intent of our founding fathers. Most of the rights upon which our country is based stem from the philosophy of Locke. Indeed, "Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness" was originally dervided from Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property," the change Jefferson made was mainly one of style in a bombastic document. Indeed, the concept of property rights goes back to the Whigs in England, long before the birth of the US there was a movement challenging the control of land by Kings.

If thats your case, you're kinda outta luck, kid. The right to own private property is the basic building block of liberty in the west. All freedoms, essentially, flow from ownership. Being a free man basically means that no one but yourself can claim ownership over your body except in extreme cases (criminality and conscription). In America, the entire constitution, and all the rights contained within, are very closely tied to property rights. Freedom of conscience and speech don't just mean you can say or belive what you want, those freedoms are basic and necessary to maintain ownership over one's mind, over oneself as an individual. Attacks on property rights are the traditional domain of kings and tyrants, if you want to argue that the government has the natural authority for these takings, then you have to argue that all property is, ultimately, government property. Individuals are simply allowed, by their government, to reside on or use that property.

Such an argument, however, is a pretty clear violation of the intent of our founding fathers. Most of the rights upon which our country is based stem from the philosophy of Locke. Indeed, "Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness" was originally dervided from Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property," the change Jefferson made was mainly one of style in a bombastic document. Indeed, the concept of property rights goes back to the Whigs in England, long before the birth of the US there was a movement challenging the control of land by Kings.

That sort of dissenting point of view is what I'm looking for: the argument either that private property/land is the government's in the first place, or that it has some sort of inherent justification for taking them. The first can be semi-justified by the idea that land ownership is just a legal issue anyway, but I want more than that. What would be really useful (and what I've been trying rather futilely to find) is some sort of argument for a feudal concept of land ownership. The problem I've been running into is that almost as soon as such concepts were questioned, they fell. The best I've run into is the founder of the concept of eminent domain, Hugo Grotius, but I haven't actually been able to find a passage where he justifies it. Most of his work seems to be concentrated on proving that the Dutch have the right to trade with the East Indies. I know eminent domain is buried in there somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it.

Eminent Domain has become the corporate Last resort when they want the land, using underhanded tactics to have government officials to declare Eminent Domain citing that putting the business (The Corporation) there is for the 'Greater Good' of the Town due to taxes or some other thing. It's the usual abuse of a government Right by corrupt Government officials.
Kelo v New London - need I say more?