Here's Another Reason I Don't Care Much For the Catholic Church

bassboy1

Senior Member
https://www.apnews.com/0b3d63c524214bbdbfb58ce8f61589f0

That's the church, not Catholics. All the Catholics I know are tip top.
I don't believe in imminent domain. If .gov wants to acquire land from it's rightful owner, the land needs to be acquired voluntarily (ie, purchased for a price agreeable to the former landowner).

But, that creates a problem if we need a wall, and some refuse to sell land (for obvious political reasons, because anything is for sale for the right price).

Bassboy's solution: Go inland to the next property owner, and offer to buy their land. Keep going until you find willing sellers. At some point, you'll find enough people willing to sell land. Build the wall there. If some property owners end up on the wrong side of the wall, that's their problem.
 
Eminent domain is a necessary evil. Without some form of it no road project would ever get built, because there is always at least one hardhead who just won't cooperate. The same will be true of the wall project.
 

bassboy1

Senior Member
because there is always at least one hardhead who just won't cooperate.
Yep, the gun grabbers are saying the same thing about new gun control laws "there's always some hardhead that won't give up his AR."

If some hardhead slows down 'progress,' I'm okay with that.
 
Thread starter #5
I don't believe in imminent domain.
That and a buck twenty five will get you a hot cup of joe at the Waffle House. Imminent domain has been around for a long time and it's not going anywhere. Kelo v New London was a travesty though.

But, that creates a problem if we need a wall, and some refuse to sell land (for obvious political reasons, because anything is for sale for the right price).

Bassboy's solution: Go inland to the next property owner, and offer to buy their land. Keep going until you find willing sellers. At some point, you'll find enough people willing to sell land. Build the wall there. If some property owners end up on the wrong side of the wall, that's their problem.
So don't deny them the right to quiet enjoyment of their private property via imminent domain. Instead refuse them equal protection under the law by putting them on the wrong side of the wall. Makes perfect sense.
 

bassboy1

Senior Member
Imminent domain has been around for a long time and it's not going anywhere.
Aren't you just a ray of golden sunshine?

Just because it's been around a long time doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm quite glad our founding fathers didn't share your sentiment.


So don't deny them the right to quiet enjoyment of their private property via imminent domain. Instead refuse them equal protection under the law by putting them on the wrong side of the wall.
Hmm. That does present a bit of a catch 22. Still thinking the private property rights should trump all else.

And, considering the makeup of the people that are unwilling to sell, I think the wall on the neighboring property to the North would be more of a 'win' than pulling eminent domain.
 
Last edited:
The issue on the Texas border is NOT really Eminent Domain. Actual Texans, who live on the border and have been there for years, will gladly trade or even sell land for a wall. The problem is leftist, globalist, activist interlopers who bought land over the last decades expressly for the purpose of interfering with government efforts to close the border. In some cases, the land has not changed hands (as in the case of the run down Mission, Tx chapel) but control of the property has. The Oblate Order Priest is not speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, he is instead speaking for his Illegal Alien congregation and his local Catholic organization. The lawsuit is Oblates suing - not the RC Church. You may be certain that the globalist backers of this effort (think Soros) will throw in 1st Amendment arguments, sanctity of the land, protection of the congregation, and every other scheme the leftist attorneys can think of.

The environmentalist nut jobs (like the butterfly woman in the story) have been part of the border issues for decades. Mostly it is a case of these people are really wierd, and not too bright, so it is easy for someone to convince them their environmental passion is threatened by something happening along the border, then funding their efforts to "combat" the looming "disaster." It really will not get in the way of the Feds building a wall - it is just an expensive headache.

There are literally 10s of thousands of property owners along the US/Mexico border. A dozen or so are actually long term residents who oppose the government building a wall on their land. That problem can be handled by Eminent Domain, or by simply building the wall to the north. Where there are real issues, you can be sure the activists will find a liberal federal judge who will file an injunction.

I can't find it right now, but I read somewhere that about 60 or 70 Texas ranchers had sold off their land adjacent the Rio Grande over the past 35 years. If I remember correctly, the most common reason given was the danger caused by coyotes and drug runners. A significant number of buyers of that land turned out to be immigration activists, globalists, and liberal "human rights" groups. Their normal practice was to use a fake buyer with local connections, then transfer the property.

The activist groups are a real threat to the Wall project, because they have financial support from globalists and political support from Democrats.
 
Thread starter #9
I'm quite glad our founding fathers didn't share your sentiment.
You would be wrong on that point, to wit:

Amendment 5
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.

Hmm. That does present a bit of a catch 22. Still thinking the private property rights should trump all else.
It's a huge Catch 22. Private property rights are the sine qua non of a free people. That includes one's self, one's personal property and one's real property. Nevertheless there are times when the government has a compelling public use of private property as we all well know. The Fifth Amendment is clear as to what standard the government must meet to take your property. Specifically it must give you due process and just compensation.

You will note the founders didn't get into "compelling public use" or any of the other elements regarding imminent domain. They believed imminent domain would be applied judiciously and used only in cases of roads and other public works necessary for the government to reasonably function and commerce to proceed. They left it up to future generations to fight out those points all while assuming 200 years from now Americans would still be "righteous" and "prudent" like them because that was the only way a republic could survive. Franklin even said so - "We have given you a republic madam. Now see if you can keep it!"

230 years later after the fact, maybe the anti-federalists had some excellent points. It's a good thing Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in that duel before he could cause more mischief. It's a shame it didn't happen sooner before the Constn was written to include Hamilton's "General Welfare" clause. Personally I don't think too much of Hamilton. He was a bankster to boot.
 
Thread starter #10
The activist groups are a real threat to the Wall project, because they have financial support from globalists and political support from Democrats.
Simple. Kill them all. :bounce:
 

bassboy1

Senior Member
You would be wrong on that point, to wit:
Wasn't where I was going with that at all, but well played.:rockon:


And, understanding the legality of eminent domain (or anything else) doesn't make it right. 230 years of hindsight gives a pretty clear picture of "right."

So, I'll double down - I don't believe in eminent domain.
 
Thread starter #12
Wasn't where I was going with that at all, but well played.:rockon:


And, understanding the legality of eminent domain (or anything else) doesn't make it right. 230 years of hindsight gives a pretty clear picture of "right."

So, I'll double down - I don't believe in eminent domain.
Actually hindsight goes back well past 230 years. Imminent domain is a generally accepted power of governments going back to the dawn of civilization. The sovereign is supreme. Stuff like that always starts out just and fair. And then all of a sudden it isn't. That's where the hindsight comes in to play but by then it's too late.

When you get right down to it I don't believe in it much either. Hey, you got a buck twenty five I can borrow? I got a hankerin' for some Waffle House coffee. I need tip money for the waitress too. :bounce:
 
So, certain parts of the Bill of Rights are better than others, huh?

I have been involved in a number of eminent domain cases as a licensed real estate broker. They aren't fun, but, I repeat, even if roadbuilding and the like was to be completely privatized, there would still have to be some form of eminent domain, or no roads would ever get built, just because in any group of five people or more you get 17 opinions. Hence the reason the Founding Fathers enshrined eminent domain in the Fifth Amendment.
 
Thread starter #14
So, certain parts of the Bill of Rights are better than others, huh?

I have been involved in a number of eminent domain cases as a licensed real estate broker. They aren't fun, but, I repeat, even if roadbuilding and the like was to be completely privatized, there would still have to be some form of eminent domain, or no roads would ever get built, just because in any group of five people or more you get 17 opinions. Hence the reason the Founding Fathers enshrined eminent domain in the Fifth Amendment.
bassboy just doesn't like that part of the 5th Amendment. All the other amendments are fine. Well, maybe that whole equal protection under the law thing might be a sticking point too. When it comes to governing documents he's a big fan of anarchy. It's real simple to understand and apply. Less is more, right?:biggrin2:
 

PappyHoel

Senior Member
I read the whole article.

I know where the drug/human smuggling safe houses and corridors are now.
 
Thread starter #17
I read the whole article.

I know where the drug/human smuggling safe houses and corridors are now.
La Lomita chapel and the Cavazos' property would be a good place to start looking.
 
Thread starter #18
When it comes to .gov control, yes, that's true.
No argument from this corner, either.

The argument in most eminent domain cases is over exactly what constitutes "just compensation." The government says "fair market value" constitutes just compensation, but ends up paying more than fair market value in many cases. Sometimes however a property owner is better off settling out of court, because a jury often awards less than the government is willing to pay. I saw a case recently in which the government offered $150,000.00, but the property owner wanted $300,000.00, but was awarded $40,000.00 by the jury. Out of that he owed the attorney 40 percent, not to mention the fees owed his consultants including surveyors and appraisers. He probably ended up with $5,000.00.
 
Aren't you just a ray of golden sunshine?

Just because it's been around a long time doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm quite glad our founding fathers didn't share your sentiment.




Hmm. That does present a bit of a catch 22. Still thinking the private property rights should trump all else.

And, considering the makeup of the people that are unwilling to sell, I think the wall on the neighboring property to the North would be more of a 'win' than pulling eminent domain.
The power of imminent domain is contained in the 5th Amendment ... which was passed by the founders. What grade did you make in your civics class? I don't like it being used for private development, but without it, we could not have roads and many other public accommodations.
 
Top