NationStates Jolt Archive

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?

Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed. The first of these is the right to use the property. The second is the right to alienate the property. The third and greatest is the right to exclude people from the property.

Madison said yes, so long as it was for a public use and the owner was paid a fair market value. We see that Madison prevailed and now the ability of the government is being abused by revenue hungry municipalities, counties, and states.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?

Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed. The first of these is the right to use the property. The second is the right to alienate the property. The third and greatest is the right to exclude people from the property.

Madison said yes, so long as it was for a public use and the owner was paid a fair market value. We see that Madison prevailed and now the ability of the government is being abused by revenue hungry municipalities, counties, and states.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?

And by this you mean striking down imminent domain?

short answer: no you can’t own dirt and no you can’t sit there and deny people the right to enjoy there own country/planet

short answer: no you can’t own dirt and no you can’t sit there and deny people the right to enjoy there own country/planet

I have a deed that says otherwise.

I have a deed that says otherwise.

you have a piece of paper that has value because the people respect it, if you lets say brought mt Rushmore and denied people from visiting it you would see that deed become fairly useless

Just like private property, imminent domain is far too convenient a concept not to be implemented. Right and wrong, in this case, are irrelevant.

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?

"Every citizen whose property is requisitioned by means of an expropriation order or by any other such disposition shall be guaranteed compensation for his loss on the bases laid down in law." (Art. 18, Instrument of Government)

So, yes, yes it does.

Just like private property, imminent domain is far too convenient a concept not to be implemented. Right and wrong, in this case, are irrelevant.
I concur, good sir!

Just like private property, imminent domain is far too convenient a concept not to be implemented. Right and wrong, in this case, are irrelevant.

Imminent != eminent.

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?

Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed. The first of these is the right to use the property. The second is the right to alienate the property. The third and greatest is the right to exclude people from the property.

Madison said yes, so long as it was for a public use and the owner was paid a fair market value. We see that Madison prevailed and now the ability of the government is being abused by revenue hungry municipalities, counties, and states.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?

Nice selective quoting! The text actually says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Italics are mine. We can debate what "just compensation" is but the principle has been fairly well upheld since 1788.

Homologation is the term when the governement tells you that you cannot build what you want on a certain section of your real estate. Most properties in Quebec have this. I do not know what the laws are in your area. I assume they are similar.

Why does the government do this?

Usually because services such as potable water, electricity, phonelines, etc. run through this area. Yes, it is private property. No, you can't do what you want. If you do not like this, then I suggest you learn how to live with the basic infrastructure that society provides.

Yes they can take your property. However, various SCOTUS cases have changed the meaning of "public use" and "just compensation" to mean "private use" and "condemn the property and take it for nothing".

Also, keep in mind that the only reason you are able to be as secure in your property as you are is because the state protects your right to be.

Try building a road or rail system without taking private property.

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?

Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed. The first of these is the right to use the property. The second is the right to alienate the property. The third and greatest is the right to exclude people from the property.

Madison said yes, so long as it was for a public use and the owner was paid a fair market value. We see that Madison prevailed and now the ability of the government is being abused by revenue hungry municipalities, counties, and states.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?No, this is one of the few things that Madison is correct on.

im fine with leaving it up to the various states to decide if they want the current more radical form of eminent domain that involves taking perfectly good property away from one private owner and selling to another private owner who will develop it in such a way as to generate more tax revenues.


eminent domain for public projects is fine. there should be more attention paid to not taking more than is absolutely necessary and to making sure that the owner got a true fair market value for it.

eminent domain for private projects is a terrible thing and as far as im concerned should be outlawed by the state im living in. as i think it will be.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?
No.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Homologation is the term when the governement tells you that you cannot build what you want on a certain section of your real estate. Most properties in Quebec have this. I do not know what the laws are in your area. I assume they are similar.

Why does the government do this?

Usually because services such as potable water, electricity, phonelines, etc. run through this area. Yes, it is private property. No, you can't do what you want. If you do not like this, then I suggest you learn how to live with the basic infrastructure that society provides.

I know that the first 6 feet of my front lawn belong to the government. They can just build another traffic lane or put a sidewalk there or whatever they want. They don't even have to compensate me for it.

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?

Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed. The first of these is the right to use the property. The second is the right to alienate the property. The third and greatest is the right to exclude people from the property.

Madison said yes, so long as it was for a public use and the owner was paid a fair market value. We see that Madison prevailed and now the ability of the government is being abused by revenue hungry municipalities, counties, and states.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?

Neither view has prevailed. Eminent Domain to build a park or a road is public use. Eminent domain to give land to anyone with the money to bribe a politician is not public use. It is private use and corporate socialism. It is the view of Franco (I'd say Hitler, but people associate him more with the genocide than the flawed political structure making him unhelpfully inflammatory), not the views of Jefferson or Madison that have prevailed.

It doesn't matter how you amend the Constitution. If people don't follow it, it is useless. The Constitution already forbids the sort of thing that's going on.

However, it is state governments that are doing it, for the most part. And SCOTUS view right now is "the Constitution allows the Federal government to seize land for pulic use, it says nothing about whether the States can do it, (therefore they can by default) or for what purpose. Amending the Constitution to deny the Federal government the power of eminent domain won't help there either. Of course, an amendment to broaden the federal governments juristiction over State Governments would do it, but then you've got the conservative idea of sacrosanct property rights going against the conservative idea of limited federal authority. Mexican Standoff.

I know that the first 6 feet of my front lawn belong to the government. They can just build another traffic lane or put a sidewalk there or whatever they want. They don't even have to compensate me for it.


Not quite. It is still yours in an economic sense in that you can borrow money against it, or rent it out, or use it to grow crops. You probably cannot limit access of governement workers to that part of your property, but if a private individual trespassed on it, they would be trespassing on your private property.

You would definitely not be allowed to build on it though.

Not quite. It is still yours in an economic sense in that you can borrow money against it, or rent it out, or use it to grow crops. You probably cannot limit access of governement workers to that part of your property, but if a private individual trespassed on it, they would be trespassing on your private property.

You would definitely not be allowed to build on it though.

This is a bit of a grey area isn't it? Seems either I should own it, or the government should. I know about this because my county gave me a small fine for putting trash and some other stuff near the street for too long.

No, this is one of the few things that Madison is correct on.

You've got the first reply that really addresses the question. Thanks.

So which of the 'bundle of rights' that I listed is not appropriate? If all the rights are valid, then the government cannot seize property, no matter what the compensation.

From a viewpoint of distributive justice, property rights are most likely to conflict with a form of redistribution. The philosopher Nozick states, within the context of his entitlement theory, that people exert property rights over holdings they are entitled to; they are free to employ their entitled properties, as they will. Furthermore, he asserts that a person is entitled to a holding if he has acquired the holding either in accordance with the principle of just acquisition or in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer. Consequently, no one is entitled to a holding except by, repeated, application of these two principles. Subsequently, a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they posses under the distribution or if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means.

Before turning to the, somewhat problematic, principle of justice in acquisition, let us first proceed with a concise explanation of the principle of justice in transfer. This principle is designed as to preserve justice when changing from one distribution towards another, thereby allowing voluntary change between equally just distributions. Essentially, one has the right to do with their entitled holding as one pleases; hence this includes transferring it to another, whereupon the other becomes entitled to the holding and the first is no longer. Thus, when you receive a holding, by voluntary exchange, from someone entitled to that holding, you have acquired the holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer; hence you are entitled to the holding. Alternatively, put in the abridged and simplified, yet striking words of Nozick: “From each as they chose, to each as they are chosen”.

Assuming the primacy of rights holds and people subsequently exert property rights over holdings they are entitled to, what then should we do when the property rights of one collide with the just claims of another? For example, suppose Richard and Amy are living on an Island with no outside contact; Richard’s life is threatened by a lack of sustenance, while Amy holds and is entitled to, all available provisions. Yet, she refuses to provide them to Richard, irrespective of how much he offers, because she wants to use the food to feed the fish. Assume we are in a position of state-like strength, having the power to redistribute holdings as we see fit. Would it be just to redistribute the provisions, in order that Richard lives? Following from earlier statements it would not be just to interfere with the status quo, since it is not allowed to infringe upon the rights of one in order to protect the rights of others. Nevertheless, Richard’s demise would be disturbing to most, even though some would not experience any discomfort following Amy’s exercise of property rights.

You've got the first reply that really addresses the question. Thanks.

So which of the 'bundle of rights' that I listed is not appropriate? If all the rights are valid, then the government cannot seize property, no matter what the compensation.The rights may be valid, but that doesn't make them absolute. No right protected in the Constitution is absolute--freedom of speech is not freedom to slander, after all. Rights are more a negotiation between individuals and between the individual and the state--they're a balancing act between the needs of the one and of the society. Sometimes we push more toward the individual, sometimes not.

You've got the first reply that really addresses the question. Thanks.

So which of the 'bundle of rights' that I listed is not appropriate? If all the rights are valid, then the government cannot seize property, no matter what the compensation.Right here:

"Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed."

Property rights aren't sacrosanct, governments grant them. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, the government has the right to take private land for public use. Beyond this, I can see where individual property owners can keep other individuals off of the property.

Furthermore, considering the limited resources available to us in the world we live in, do we have the right to posses a part of these resources? For, even if all resources are, at one time, justly and evenly distributed among the population of the world, this population is not constant. What should be the share of those born new to the world? Do they have the right to a share? Is it based on the share provided by their parents, which was in turn provided to them by their parents? Is the share of subsequent generations, consequently, based on their parents, grandparents and ancestors? If we allow for the appropriation of the world’s resources, subsequent generations would not have any rights concerning these resources, other than those provided to them by previous generations. To most this seems counterintuitive; it is doubtful that those individuals which have been born earlier in time should have a bigger claim to the earth’s resources compared to those that have been born at a later time. Especially in the case of a distribution of the world’s total resources, future generations will have a just claim towards the holdings appropriated by earlier generations.

This claim, consequently, creates a problem: since one individual can not be held morally responsible for the acts of another, one similarly can not be held responsible for previous generations. Yet, in effect, one is held responsible, as one’s entitlement to the limited resources of the planet, and therefore one’s chances in life, are greatly affected by the choices and actions of earlier generations. This, in turn, has far reaching consequences for the principle of just transfer; since later generations have just claims upon the holdings of earlier generations, there are limits to what earlier generations may justly do with those holdings. Could they, consequently, still be entitled to the holding? If earlier generations expend these holdings they do injustice to later generations; in effect earlier generations become keeper of the holdings to which later generations have a just claim. These property rights would therefore be more similar to custody rights, thereby restricting the entitlements. According to the principle of justice in transfer, entitlements can only be bestowed upon others by those entitled to the holding; a thief, for example, is not entitled to a stolen holding, therefore he cannot bestow the entitlement of the holding upon another. Similarly, a custodian is not entitled to a holding held in custody; therefore, if he transfers it to another, the new holder is not entitled to it either. If earlier generations hold the planet’s resources in custody, they are not entitled to present these holdings to another; therefore upon presentation the new holder would not be entitled to the holding. Consequently, no one would be entitled to any holding flowing from the world’s resources.

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?

Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed. The first of these is the right to use the property. The second is the right to alienate the property. The third and greatest is the right to exclude people from the property.

Madison said yes, so long as it was for a public use and the owner was paid a fair market value. We see that Madison prevailed and now the ability of the government is being abused by revenue hungry municipalities, counties, and states.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?

"Property is theft!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft%21)- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Right here:

"Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed."

Property rights aren't sacrosanct, governments grant them. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, the government has the right to take private land for public use. Beyond this, I can see where individual property owners can keep other individuals off of the property.

But the government doesn't grant the rights. These are inherent rights, as Madison says "...The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Clearly, property rights are not granted by government. No true right is.

Now, why should we be worried about a government that can do anything it likes? Because that government can steal things from people that it doesn't like and give them to people that are in favor. People aren't any better off than if they lived in anarchy.

The rights may be valid, but that doesn't make them absolute. No right protected in the Constitution is absolute--freedom of speech is not freedom to slander, after all. Rights are more a negotiation between individuals and between the individual and the state--they're a balancing act between the needs of the one and of the society. Sometimes we push more toward the individual, sometimes not.

You're wrong. I do have the freedom to slander. I'm not free from the consequences, however. Property needs to be treated the way. The takings clause needs to be amended to clearly prohibit any taking by the government.

Nice selective quoting! The text actually says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Italics are mine. We can debate what "just compensation" is but the principle has been fairly well upheld since 1788.

Titles are attention getters. I believe I did refer to compensation when writing about Madison's position. My claim is that the Fifth Amendment should be changed, not that eminent domain isn't provided for in the Constitution.

But the government doesn't grant the rights. These are inherent rights, as Madison says "...The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Clearly, property rights are not granted by government. No true right is.Well, I'll try to avoid the theoretical discussion of where rights come from, and simply say that it could be argued that in every case of taking private property for public use, it is done to protect property rights as a whole.

Now, why should we be worried about a government that can do anything it likes? Because that government can steal things from people that it doesn't like and give them to people that are in favor. People aren't any better off than if they lived in anarchy.What the government can do is limited by the Constitution.

All mud should be free access. :)

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


Yes, it can be taken by the government, it says so in the constitution.

An yes, this is just and reasonable.


Shouldnt you be holed up in NH with your buddy Ed Brown?

Constitution Ranger :rolleyes:

"Property is theft!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft%21)- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

"Proudhon was a moron!" - me :D

You're wrong. I do have the freedom to slander. I'm not free from the consequences, however. Property needs to be treated the way. The takings clause needs to be amended to clearly prohibit any taking by the government.

Your right to slander is not protected by the Constitution. We're talking about protected rights here, even though apparently you want to go elsewhere in the discussion. And property most decidedly does not need to be treated as sacrosanct. Without the government's ability to take for the public good, the public corruption you see now or even at the turn of the 19th century by the machines would be hopscotch compared to what it would be if private owners could charge the government whatever they wanted for land on which to build a road or run sewer lines or any public use like that. We'd be living in a third world country.

But the government doesn't grant the rights. These are inherent rights, as Madison says "...The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Clearly, property rights are not granted by government. No true right is.



Because of your right to property, the government is compelled to give you just compensation.

Why is this difficult, especially for a Constitution Ranger like you?

All mud should be free access. :)

And tacos. ;)

Your right to slander is not protected by the Constitution. We're talking about protected rights here, even though apparently you want to go elsewhere in the discussion. And property most decidedly does not need to be treated as sacrosanct. Without the government's ability to take for the public good, the public corruption you see now or even at the turn of the 19th century by the machines would be hopscotch compared to what it would be if private owners could charge the government whatever they wanted for land on which to build a road or run sewer lines or any public use like that. We'd be living in a third world country.

I guess I should have said "to speak slanderously". Still, if property isn't absolutely protected, then we have opened the doors to any kind of theft that the government might care to engage in. We all like to talk about closing loopholes; let's close this one on takings. Maybe we clarify that the takings can only be for the originally intended public uses ... roads, bridges, and forts. But certainly not for private development.

And tacos. ;)

Agreed. :)

But the government doesn't grant the rights. These are inherent rights, as Madison says "...The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Clearly, property rights are not granted by government. No true right is.

Now, why should we be worried about a government that can do anything it likes? Because that government can steal things from people that it doesn't like and give them to people that are in favor. People aren't any better off than if they lived in anarchy.

The means of original acquisition is central to the right of possession. Consequently, there can be no just possession without just original acquisition. Just original aquisition is problematic.

But the government doesn't grant the rights. These are inherent rights, as Madison says "...The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Clearly, property rights are not granted by government. No true right is.

Now, why should we be worried about a government that can do anything it likes? Because that government can steal things from people that it doesn't like and give them to people that are in favor. People aren't any better off than if they lived in anarchy.

Governments do grant property rights. Societies that have no government have no concept of property. Everyone shares everything regardless of the work put in. That's why it tends to be so hard to get hunter-gatherer societies to change their ways. If your friend likes to hunt and you don't, and you get as much meat as he does when he brings it home, then why would you bother to hunt? Even the guy who does the hunting doesn't complain about this because it's just the way people act when they have no government. Everyone shares everything.

Once societies settle down and stay in one place they form governments to help organize themselves, and part of what the governments job is, is to decide who gets what land. From there personal property is just an extension of land ownership. You own the land, you own the stuff on the land.

Property ownership is a function of sedentary society. For something to be sacrosanct it must be eternal. Otherwise it is merely contingent, as ownership is contingent on sedentary society and government formation.

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?

Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed. The first of these is the right to use the property. The second is the right to alienate the property. The third and greatest is the right to exclude people from the property.

Madison said yes, so long as it was for a public use and the owner was paid a fair market value. We see that Madison prevailed and now the ability of the government is being abused by revenue hungry municipalities, counties, and states.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?

Nope. One's right to property is subordinate at times to the rights of the many.

What should be done is to ensure that there is a clear understanding that seizing private property just to turn it over to a corporation so we can tax more out of it is simply unacceptable. That's not a legimitate need.

Nice selective quoting! The text actually says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Italics are mine. We can debate what "just compensation" is but the principle has been fairly well upheld since 1788.

Owned by reality.

Because of your right to property, the government is compelled to give you just compensation.

Why is this difficult, especially for a Constitution Ranger like you?

Of course the notion of "Just Compensation" is problematic at the outset. The value of anything is a function of what the purchaser wishes to pay and what the seller wishes to recieve in exchange. The photo of my grandmother in my study may be worth only $0.99 including the frame, but if you were to give me a dollar and burn the picture I would not feel as though I had been justly compensated.

If a developer wants to build an apartment complex on the plot where my one-family house is built and this complex stands to earn him millions of dollars, then doesn't the land have value greater than that which I paid for it? If houses in the area were selling for $500,000, and I paid $250,000 10 years ago, is it just to only give me back the $250,000 I paid for the house, leaving me unable to find a suitable replacement at todays prices? Is it even just to force me to accept $500,000 from a guy who could pay me ten times as much and still make a profit off the deal?

If so, could I use eminent domain laws to force the local record shop to sell me all their CD's for $0.10 a piece because that's how much it costs to make a CD?

There really is only one way to measure "Just Compensation." Keep offering the guy more money until he agrees to sell. When he says "yes," the compensation is just. Otherwise it's nothing but extortion.

"Property is theft!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft%21)- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

indeed

while i support expropriation without compensation as a general principle, i don't want the state having that sort of power, because the rich bastards already fuck us over enough as it is.

Of course the notion of "Just Compensation" is problematic at the outset. The value of anything is a function of what the purchaser wishes to pay and what the seller wishes to recieve in exchange. The photo of my grandmother in my study may be worth only $0.99 including the frame, but if you were to give me a dollar and burn the picture I would not feel as though I had been justly compensated.

If a developer wants to build an apartment complex on the plot where my one-family house is built and this complex stands to earn him millions of dollars, then doesn't the land have value greater than that which I paid for it? If houses in the area were selling for $500,000, and I paid $250,000 10 years ago, is it just to only give me back the $250,000 I paid for the house, leaving me unable to find a suitable replacement at todays prices? Is it even just to force me to accept $500,000 from a guy who could pay me ten times as much and still make a profit off the deal?

If so, could I use eminent domain laws to force the local record shop to sell me all their CD's for $0.10 a piece because that's how much it costs to make a CD?

There really is only one way to measure "Just Compensation." Keep offering the guy more money until he agrees to sell. When he says "yes," the compensation is just. Otherwise it's nothing but extortion.


Here we have two issues, the one of just compensation (I assume that you have no problem, so long as the compensation is indeed just?) and the one of whether eminent domain should rightly be extended to private parties.

The court's recent unpopular decision serves only in this case to muddy the waters. Assuming that a law bars what the court upheld (as new laws increasingly do), what is the issue of government buying up land for the public good, say a freeway or an airport?

indeed

while i support expropriation without compensation as a general principle, i don't want the state having that sort of power, because the rich bastards already fuck us over enough as it is.

So you'd rather us be fucked over by the poor rabble?

So you'd rather us be fucked over by the poor rabble?

i'd rather there not be poor rabble. hence the expropriation.

So you'd rather us be fucked over by the poor rabble?

Ever thought that the poor "rabble" might exist because of private property?

Still, if property isn't absolutely protected, then we have opened the doors to any kind of theft that the government might care to engage in. We all like to talk about closing loopholes; let's close this one on takings. Maybe we clarify that the takings can only be for the originally intended public uses ... roads, bridges, and forts. But certainly not for private development.

Slippery slope fallacy. Saying that if private property isn't absolutely protected then it opens to any kind of theft is by the government is like saying that the existence of any government, no matter how weak/small, opens the doors to a Stalinist state or that having private property will lead to the day when people need to pay for their oxygen intake.

Even with closing the loophole private property isn't absolutely protected and it leads to your slippery slope where if taking someone's property and giving it over to private development serve's the public then it should happen.

I guess I should have said "to speak slanderously". Still, if property isn't absolutely protected, then we have opened the doors to any kind of theft that the government might care to engage in. We all like to talk about closing loopholes; let's close this one on takings. Maybe we clarify that the takings can only be for the originally intended public uses ... roads, bridges, and forts. But certainly not for private development.

The Supreme Court said there's a way to do that--it's called local action and legislation. This is a result of people not actually reading Kelo--they think that the Supreme Court said "fine and dandy, no one can stop eminent domain." What they said was that it's a local issue and the Supreme Court is not going to rule on the rightness or wrongness of every individual eminent domain case that gets appealed. They said that if you want to stop it, stop it locally, because those are the people in the best position to know the local situation.

On a side note, it amuses me to no end to see someone who rails against the intrusion of the federal government on other issues to be practically begging them to step in here.

Here we have two issues, the one of just compensation (I assume that you have no problem, so long as the compensation is indeed just?) and the one of whether eminent domain should rightly be extended to private parties.

The court's recent unpopular decision serves only in this case to muddy the waters. Assuming that a law bars what the court upheld (as new laws increasingly do), what is the issue of government buying up land for the public good, say a freeway or an airport?It doesn't muddy the waters--it upheld the law that's been in existence for two hundred years. What was muddied was the reaction--on all sides, I might add. Progressives only saw "developers getting rich on tax money" and conservatives only saw "they're gonna take our shit" and no one actually read the damn decision. The media didn't exactly help matters either.

The Supreme Court said there's a way to do that--it's called local action and legislation. This is a result of people not actually reading Kelo--they think that the Supreme Court said "fine and dandy, no one can stop eminent domain." What they said was that it's a local issue and the Supreme Court is not going to rule on the rightness or wrongness of every individual eminent domain case that gets appealed. They said that if you want to stop it, stop it locally, because those are the people in the best position to know the local situation.

On a side note, it amuses me to no end to see someone who rails against the intrusion of the federal government on other issues to be practically begging them to step in here.

And they were wrong. When you look at what was really said, it's as though the USSC has said there is no private property unless your local government decides that there is. That's not what the fifth Amendment intended. That's not what Madison or Jefferson intended. And that's not the way property rights work.

And your analysis of my position is completely off. I'm not begging for the federal government to step in and do anything. Rather, I'm hoping for limit on the powers of a government that often does to us what thieves and crooks do.

And they were wrong. When you look at what was really said, it's as though the USSC has said there is no private property unless your local government decides that there is. That's not what the fifth Amendment intended. That's not what Madison or Jefferson intended. And that's not the way property rights work.Only if you read that decision Candid Camera style, you know, where you take seven steps away from it, turn around and look at it from between your legs to see the blinking light in the upper left corner. What they said--and they were correct--is that SCOTUS is not the court in which to be adjudicating local eminent domain cases. It's a local matter; local people have the power to affect the law in their municipalities and states, and in many cases they have done just that. All Kelo did was remind people that they had that power, and that they had better exercise it if they're worried about their local governments grabbing their shit. You know--take the responsibility of citizenship and all that good stuff.

And your analysis of my position is completely off. I'm not begging for the federal government to step in and do anything. Rather, I'm hoping for limit on the powers of a government that often does to us what thieves and crooks do.
No, you want a constitutional amendment that would make it impossible for any government to actually make infrastructure improvements. It's a short-sighted and frankly ridiculous position.

It's a local matter; local people have the power to affect the law in their municipalities and states, and in many cases they have done just that. All Kelo did was remind people that they had that power, and that they had better exercise it if they're worried about their local governments grabbing their shit. You know--take the responsibility of citizenship and all that good stuff.

Say that property rights are a local responsibility. Local governments are abusing the power they have and need to be stopped. This seems to parallel the history of many civil rights, notably voting rights, which I believe you consider to be a federal responsibility to preserve.

What's the difference? You couldn't be caught up in that class-envy thing, could you?

Does the government have the right to take property for public use?
Yes.

Mr. Jefferson said no, the property owner's bundle of rights is so sacrosanct, that only he can decide on how the property can be disposed. The first of these is the right to use the property.
Property rights are not sacrosant. The right to life is sacrosanct.

Is it time to amend the Constitution to agree with Jefferson's view of property?
No, because he's a dead man. Who owned slaves.

Say that property rights are a local responsibility. Local governments are abusing the power they have and need to be stopped. This seems to parallel the history of many civil rights, notably voting rights, which I believe you consider to be a federal responsibility to preserve.

What's the difference? You couldn't be caught up in that class-envy thing, could you?

What on earth are you talking about? When the Kelo decision came out, I said that we needed to hit up our state and local governments and make sure that the definitions of "public good" were clearly set out and limited. In other words, I understood what Kelo said and understood what needed to be done if you wanted to keep it from happening again.

And comparing it to civil rights legislation? That's a stretch a yogi wouldn't try.

Say that property rights are a local responsibility. Local governments are abusing the power they have and need to be stopped.
Then by all that is hale and holy, go bitch at your legislature. The Federal Government has already passed laws forbidding public to private transfer under Federal powers, many states have followed suit. If Georgia hasn't gotten around to it, go down to the statehouse in Atlanta and camp out till you get the bill you want.

That's what SCOTUS said, nay, encouraged that everyone do in Kilo.

It isn't that hard and would be far easier than passing a national amendment for something this silly.

short answer: no you can’t own dirt and no you can’t sit there and deny people the right to enjoy there own country/planetI have a shotgun, from 1902, that disagrees with you all. *Redneck Laugh*

Neither view has prevailed. Eminent Domain to build a park or a road is public use. Eminent domain to give land to anyone with the money to bribe a politician is not public use. It is private use and corporate socialism. It is the view of Franco (I'd say Hitler, but people associate him more with the genocide than the flawed political structure making him unhelpfully inflammatory)BRIBERY IS GENOCIDE!!

And they were wrong. When you look at what was really said, it's as though the USSC has said there is no private property unless your local government decides that there is. That's not what the fifth Amendment intended. That's not what Madison or Jefferson intended. And that's not the way property rights work.

The 5th amendment was only intended to limit the federal government's power. Not state or loval governments'. The Constitution only limiter their power after the 14th amendment.

What on earth are you talking about? When the Kelo decision came out, I said that we needed to hit up our state and local governments and make sure that the definitions of "public good" were clearly set out and limited. In other words, I understood what Kelo said and understood what needed to be done if you wanted to keep it from happening again.

And comparing it to civil rights legislation? That's a stretch a yogi wouldn't try.
What I'm trying to do, after a long pause, is to point out that governments are established to safeguard the rights we possess. It doesn't matter whether the right is the right to vote, publish, or possess property. If, as in the case of voting rights, a local government screws with the rights of a citizen, federal intervention is needed to correct the problem. I believe we even amended the Constitution to make that right more explicit.

There's no difference in the case of takings. If the local governments screw with the right of the population to own property, then the federal government should intervene. That's it's proper job. Who knows, an amendment to clarify public use might even be in order.

What I'm trying to do, after a long pause, is to point out that governments are established to safeguard the rights we possess. It doesn't matter whether the right is the right to vote, publish, or possess property. If, as in the case of voting rights, a local government screws with the rights of a citizen, federal intervention is needed to correct the problem. I believe we even amended the Constitution to make that right more explicit.

There's no difference in the case of takings. If the local governments screw with the right of the population to own property, then the federal government should intervene. That's it's proper job. Who knows, an amendment to clarify public use might even be in order.

Governments aren't established to protect our rights. They're established to organize labor and the distribution of resources. It's nice if they safeguard rights, but it's not their purpose. Up until modern times governments, as they've become more and more complex, infringe more on people's rights.

It wasn't until the romantic movement that people even came up with the idea rights and it's because their government had taken so many of them away that they even noticed. And the only reason that the governments in power lost some of their ability to organize wealth (resources) is because it grew faster than they knew how to deal with it. Merchants made more money in trade than nobles made from land and were able to hire mercenaries to fight off nobles that tried to control them.

You need a government that has some ability to control wealth and resources, otherwise you end up with a tyranny of money, like Italy had been for so many years. But of course, it should be limited because otherwise you end up with Stalinism or this shit we're seeing with bullshit eminent domain.

And they were wrong. When you look at what was really said, it's as though the USSC has said there is no private property unless your local government decides that there is. That's not what the fifth Amendment intended. That's not what Madison or Jefferson intended. And that's not the way property rights work.

And your analysis of my position is completely off. I'm not begging for the federal government to step in and do anything. Rather, I'm hoping for limit on the powers of a government that often does to us what thieves and crooks do.

I think you need to look more closely at what Madison intended. He didn't even want a Bill of Rights because he didn't think that the Federal government's say on these issues would ever even become an issue. In their day the purpose of the Constitution was to make binding an alliance between independent states. Prior to our enacting the Constitution the word "state" meant pretty much what we mean when we say "country." The Constitution was only supposed to apply to affairs in which one state had to deal with another or when one or several states had to deal with another country.

That is not what the Federal government is anymore. Partly because it expanded its power inappropriatly and partly because the way the world works makes it impossible for most state's affairs to be completly self contained.

e.g. If New York wants to impose stricter labor saftey laws then what effect will that have on New Jersey's labor market? New York's labor laws don't just affect New York, and so they could be considered an inter-state affair. Same with South Carolina's (or is it North, I can never remember) lack of laws regarding fireworks. They result in injuries all over the country every summer. Carolina's fireworks industry doesn't just affect Carolina (whichever one it is).

My point isn't that Federal intrusion is good or bad, just that it is necessary on a far greater scale than the Founding Fathers ever imagined. When California sneezes New York blows its nose.

Ever thought that the poor "rabble" might exist because of private property?

No, because communist countries are chock full of poor rabble.

Spread the misery!