I looked this up on Wikipedia and it says:
I was wondering if this applies to everything then.
For instance, let’s say I bought the Mona Lisa (legally) and brought it to the United States and hung it in my apartment. Could the US Government say "That is a piece of great art and as such belongs in a museum? Could they then exercise eminent domain and take it?
If they can show that the Mona Lisa is needed for some beneficial government or public use, I would say sure. But just because the government says it belongs in a museum, doesn’t mean a judge would find that it met the public use standard. Not necessarily an easy standard to meet, even with the Kelo decision.
Nassau County on Long Island (NY) did just that with a local landmark, an antique carousel. The county went to court to prevent the owners from auctioning it, and bought it themselves. Sadly, it’s been moldering away in storage since then (1996)…
The Australian Constitution requires that the Commonwealth acquire property “on Just Terms”; which means they have to pay you the market value for whatever it is they’re relieving you of.
So, in theory the Government could decide that the Mona Lisa is entirely too important to be allowed to hang in your living room, but they’d have to pay you at least as much as you paid for it (and probably more) to do so.
That’s without taking the various “Public Policy” considerations into account, too.
FWIW, when they did the Gun Buyback in 1997 they jacked everyone’s income tax up by 1% to fund it. So, basically, the Government needs a really good reason to be exercising Eminent Domain here, and deciding that a Masterpiece Painting/The Ark of the Covenant/Jewel-encrusted Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam would be better off in a museum instead of the owner’s private study doesn’t really qualify.
There’s a similar requirement over here – the U.S> government can only take property upon payment of “just compensation.” Now, exactly what qualifies as just is sometimes a matter for the courts (I remember hearing about how there was a big controversy over the worth of the Zapruder Film; I don’t know how it was resolved). But typically people whose property is taken get a pretty good deal economically.
–Cliffy
Not always. I had a friend who’s dad was a lawyer. In southern Calif the school distric in plans to build a new school used eminent domain to take some of his property. The price paid was 1/2 the asking price. He ended up loosing in court. The school district descided to not build the school, they sold the property for three times the price they paidd for it. This was in the late 60’s so land prices were not going crazzy then. The “just compensation” is what ever the gov and courts claim it is.
IIRC, Eminent Domain applies only to real estate. However, they can claim other forms of property. That is much rare, however.
That’s what I said, chief.
–Cliffy
Does that bind the states as well as the Commonwealth? Could the State of Queensland seize one’s property without offering any compensation at all?
That’s a tricky one. None of the States has a “Just Compensation” clause in their Constitutions (That I’m aware of), but section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution says: When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
Public Policy, Common Law, and Legsilation precedent says they have to pay you whatever the thing they’re taking is worth, but the State Constitution itself is, I believe, silent on the matter.
So, in theory, they’d still have to pay you, but it’s been years since I studied this sort of thing at Uni.