Do you believe in Eminent Domain?

Question

Do You believe in Eminent domain?

eminent domain 

Law. the power of the state to take private property for public use with payment of compensation to the owner.

eminent domain
n.
The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.

em·i·nent do·main
Pronunciation: 'e-m&-n&nt-
Function: noun
: the right of the government to take property from a private owner for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of its sovereignty over all lands within its jurisdiction



I seem to be in a minority when it comes to this... People in my last question, even though they were libertarian on other issues seemed to favor this law... I howeve dissagree with it. I believe that if the gov't wants to build a highway, they should OFFER just compensation to the landowners. If the landowners don't want to give in, then they should build around that specific area.

I actualy don't think it is the gov'ts purpose to build roads, that should be done by private organizations.

Of course i believe in running water.. Thats why we have plumbers for the pipes, Well diggers for access, Pump manufacturers for ability, and power companies for... well.. power.

Answer 1

Its wrong. You shouldnt have the land you bought taken by the government because they want it to build something. Who is the government to decide to steal your property.What makes a business who wants to build a factory more important than a person who worked saved and bought that land?

Answer 2

Eminent domain has been around for a long time. As such, it is an established part of our law. It is even in the Constitution.

Eminent domain has historically limited its application to things that would benefit the public. However, in the past few years there has been a push for a renewed interpretation. Its premise rests on the government's greater role in the economy and in other redistributionist measures. The argument goes that by taking land and giving it to someone else who would generate greater tax revenue, government would be able to do more of the kinds of things it does now: redistribute that money for the benefit of some, regulate economic activities, and other things that were once beyond the scope of government power.

The argument makes sense in a twisted, perverse sort of way, because it depends on the expansion of government power into areas that were once off-limits. The problem, like the church-state separation issue, is that government has taken on powers it never was meant to have.

We can either amend or repeal the eminent domain clause, or we can roll back the power of government. The latter is probably a hopeless case, since roughly 50% of the population is benefitting from the situation: they pay no taxes, and many get more than they pay, plus they qualify for all the services that are paid for by the political minority.

Answer 3

It's in the Constitution, guys. They usually offer a competetive price until someone refuses to sell, then they go with the lowest legally-arguable reasonable compensation.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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

It's in black and white, quite simple. Like any law it can be abused.


As far as roads go, under article 1 section 8, Congress is given the power to build "postal roads". I agree with the above poster that you'd be paying fees... although I've heard an argument that the oil companies and automobile manufacturers should be paying for the roads, because they're the ones who make the most money from them.


By the way, I'm not saying whether I support this or not, just that it is constitutionally sanctioned. I do think that using imminent domain to help out Wal-Mart or other giant corporations gain the space they want is a misuse of power, and the argument for calling it "public use" is very very weak. Especially when they're also going to give those corporations big tax cuts.

Answer 4

If it's county road building, then they should be able to take what they need. All that they want to do is build roads for a growing population with places to go. The amount that is given in compensation doesn't amount to enough, but they should not have to build around a house or someone's property. That just causes more of your tax payer dollars to build around. Eminent domain doesn't sound fair at all, but then again, how can one own land anyway?

Answer 5

I think the government should have to show just cause, meaning why it's necessary to take the land. But if the cause is just and fair market value is paid...

Here's the catch: Guess who gets to decide fair market value? The government.

Stephanie: Eminent domain is the taking of land for PUBLIC use. A business building a factory is not public use.

Answer 6

I must disagree. The government has that inherent right, to claim land for specific public use, and is required to pay just compansation. The government must have this power, and the people must cede this power, IMO.

If the gov't didn't build roads, then you'd be stopping to pay tolls every five minutes on every street you drove on. That way lies madness.

Answer 7

Do you believe in running water?

Answer 8

nope but it does exist

Answer 9

sounds like liberal socialism