[shrug] So was Reagan. He was still an amazingly bad president.
If flag-burning were a billion-dollar junket-sponsoring industry and real estate development were the province of a few fringe bozos, Congress’ Constitutional-Amendment priorities would quickly reverse.
The language of the Takings Clause makes it a federal matter. (I am referring to the actual language, “public use”. I can’t make out the “public purpose” language the court found; as I mentioned to Bricker in another thread, my Penumbral Emanation Spectacles are in the shop being reground into bifocals.)
The language of the Takings Clause places a limit on the use of the eminent-domain power; and the only limit it places is the requirement of just compensation to the owner. It is not the source of that power, which is inherent in governmental sovereignty and always has been, long before the Constitution, long before American independence, long before America even was colonized. I still cannot fathom how anyone could interpret the Fifth Amendment as barring government from condemning property for purposes other than a particular definition or standard of “public use.”
Simply proves even amazingly powerful and selfish can overstep their bounds.The estate tax (see Buffet and gates) is clearly for the extremely wealthy to steal even more. They simply went too fast. They will try again.
It is a long-established principle of Constitutional law that words are assumed to mean something (Robert Bork’s tendency to see ink blots where everybody else sees words notwithstanding). Your interpretation clearly violates that notion, unless you’re going to advance the even more risible theory that the government has to pay compensation when it takes property for actual “public use” but can just steal it for any other reason it likes.
Actually, it’s for the extremely wealthy (who have shelters out the yin-yang anyway) to prevent the merely somewhat wealthy from accumulating a big enough fortune to crash the club.
Perhaps you have missed my point. I’m not arguing that the federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over possible violations of the constitutional clause. I am merely happy to see them show restraint by not overturning a well established procedure. I wish people wishing to limit eminent domain in their state would take it up with their state legislature.
No, my theory is that the government must compensate for any property it takes, but the Fifth Amendment does not warrant any inquiry into the purpose of the taking; the “for public use” phrase is just there to specify what’s going on.
Precisely. If, for instance, I hire a lawn service and tell them to work on “my front yard” (to specify what’s going on) and they trim the back yard as well, I hope they enjoyed the exercise they got doing the latter, because I ain’t paying them squat for it.
:rolleyes:
[sigh]
Look, Steve, arguing that the words “for public use” in the Fifth Amendment have anything to do with what use the state can or cannot legitimately make of condemned property is like arguing that the phrase “excluding Indians not taxed” in Article I, Section 2 (the three-fifths compromise), of the Constitution makes it unconstitutional to tax Indians.
No, but when Bush delivers a speech and says he favors some big new program and everbody applauds and his approval rating goes up and then a month later he sends a budget to Congress and there’s no money set aside to fund an actual program, he didn’t fall flat on his face because he Never Really Meant To Do It.
His intent was to improve his approval rating and he very effectively did that. He had no intent to actually create any new program so the fact that it never got off the ground is a non-issue to his administration.
I am sorry that I’m not a practicing lawyer with cites at my fingertips, but “for public use” does have a clear legal definition, owing to instances where small town politicos tried to use eminent domain to enrich themselves at the cost of their neighbors’ property and the town’s budget.
“Public use” means “that which benefits the public” – not explicitly and exclusively “for governmental ownership.” If a privately-owned public utility company requires an access for their power lines, negotiates with willing landowners, and is confronted with a few stubborn holdouts, eminent domain can be used to give them a minimal access to run their lines – they are providing a service to the public which, despite their private for-profit status, invests their work with the nature of being “for public use.”
Urban renewal, however badly it was implemented, was a classic example of takings that redounded to private benefit but were “for public use” – the idea of clearing blighted areas and putting in new (public-private partnership) development that would economically and socially benefit the public was held to be “for the public good.”
A very serious example of where Bush’s Executive Order applies today is in HUD and USDA economic development grants. While ideally the new development which HUD or USDA will underwrite will be constructed on land sold by a willing seller to the developer, the municipality receiving the grants has the power of eminent domain, and, since Federal money is part of the seed capital for the new development, the EO will apply. And those grants are already authorized by Congress in the enabling legislation.
There are perfectly valid reasons why a minicipality might find it appropriate to take land by eminent domain and then transfer it to another private party. I know of a quite large fire-gutted warehouse formerly owned by Black Clawson, with the present owners now in receivership, sitting in the heart of a small city industrial area. Almost any use someone might propose for that land would be of public benefit; title to the property would require a bizarrely large number of sign-offs from people who presumably have no clue they have an interest in it, owing to the receivership situation; and the city taking it by eminent domain to transfer to a developer with an intelligent, economically beneficial plan for redeveloping the site, would be in the public interest not only from an economic standpoint but, quite honestly, from a public health and safety one as well.
The New London case has highlighted one very poor application of eminent domain in behalf of private-sector developers. But let’s not forget that there are very valid uses.
Do not forget that land title is not absolute ownership in some metaphysical sense – “fee simple” means that the individual holds that land of the body politic, the sovereign people, in exchange for having purchased it from another, the paying of taxes, and for use in accord with appropriate law. Sale of property at a tax auction, the condemning of decrepit property, etc., are all acts of the sovereign people in relation to the land it has granted fee simple title to. Eminent domain is another such use: under specific Constutional and statutory constraints, the government is entitled to reclaim such land from its fee-simple owners when it has an overriding need for that particular land. Anything from a superhighway to a sewer line to anti-flooding construction may constitute a valid reason for the government to take private property, subject to the Fifth Amendment restrictions. And so, under certain circumstances, may economic development projects.
For once, I can wholeheartedly endorse something Mr. Bush has done. This Executive Order seems carefully tailored to make sure that only those eminent domain actions that are legally and emotionally reasonable to the average citizen are undertaken.
I’m fairly certain your incorrect here. The several articles I’ve read on this indicate that it won’t effect how federal funds are dispursed just that federal agencies themselves won’t use ED, not that they can’t give funds to those state agencies that do. From the OP article:
I agree with the rest of your post though.