Is eminent domain really democratic?

Question

i was bored... so i thought to myself "might as well ask".

Answer 1

Technically, yes. Eminent domain is as democratic as taxes. Both take personal property for the good of the community. And both are decided by the will (or vote) of the majority.

Democracy (and its variants) is decision making by the majority. It inherently says nothing about property ownership. You can have a democratic communist state as easily as a democratic capitalist govt.

That's the thing about a democracy or a republic. It's might-makes-right majority rule. And if the majority decides to take property, the minority loses out because that's the way the system says it should be.

Up until last year, there was some constitutional protection because of the "public use" part of the Takings Clause. The Supreme Court decided that the final decision is going to be made by the legislature as to what constitutes "public use". So, they basically took the reigns off the legislatures, and allowed them (rather than the courts) to make the decisions.

And that's the core of how democracy is supposed to function.

Answer 2

Yes, it is indirectly I think. What I mean is that the public elects the politicians who are supposed to look after our best interest. Eminent Domain is used to benefit public. Granted, losing a cherished item such as your home can really be depressing, but many more people since the inception of the USA have given so much more by paying the ultimate sacrifice. If you find yourself unhappy about how your community is handling eminent domain issues, get involved. If you don't get involved and at least attempt to make a change for what you think is the better than you can only blame yourself.

Answer 3

There has always been eminent domain. If land is need for good of community like road, hospital enlargement, parks then eminent domain is necessary, but if it is for private business
like a larger developments then no it is not democratic,
We are having this problem in our area, greedy real estate moguls trying to take land - city council is approving the land grabbing. And no, these are all Democrats with one Republican voting with them.

Answer 4

Of course it is. The only reason that our State governments have this power in the first place is because elected representatives passed statutes that gave the States this power. The reason the laws gradually changed to include hand-overs of property to private interests (instead of just being for parks and highways and stuff) is because the people elected representatives who changed the laws in that manner. If people dislike the scope of the power or how it may be used in their State, they have the right to elect representatives who will change the law in that manner.

All of the whiners who I have heard placing "the blame" for our current situation on the Supreme Court, our form of government, etc., miss the basic point that they have the right and duty to vote and change things instead of just complaining and slandering our courts and Constitution. When a democracy's people grow lazy, complacent, or radically partisan, the system will not save them from themselves.

Answer 5

Not at all.

It was designed to be used for the public good. If there was land and the city needed it to build roads, schools, hospital, it was a way to force someone to sell at a "fair" price. (I know - define "fair").

Last year the Supremes decided cities can toss people out on their ear so cities can build shopping malls. By redefining "public good", this is a slippery slope. What if folks in a very affluent area decide it is in the public good to tear down public housing to put up a Barnes & Noble. Is that still a public good?

Answer 6

Yes, if you have the guns and horses to back it up.

Answer 7

No. It is Dictatorial.