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

Flash

Senior Member
I read the whole article.

I know where the drug/human smuggling safe houses and corridors are now.
IF a property owner does such wouldn't that allow the gov to confiscate their land?
Be charged with treason or some other big word???
 

bassboy1

Senior Member
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.
There again, just because it's in the Constitution, doesn't mean I think it should have been. Easier to say now than then, seeing the result over 230 years, but still true.

And my statement about the founding fathers not sharing elfiii's sentiment was not in regard to the 5th amendment, but instead a much broader view - things that have been around awhile in general, not any one thing in particular.

ie, tyrannical British rule was the way of the world, and had been around for a long time, but that does not make it right, or something they should have to tolerate.

I sez: eminent domain has been around for a long time, and is the way of the world, but that doesn't make it right.
 
There again, just because it's in the Constitution, doesn't mean I think it should have been. Easier to say now than then, seeing the result over 230 years, but still true.

And my statement about the founding fathers not sharing elfiii's sentiment was not in regard to the 5th amendment, but instead a much broader view - things that have been around awhile in general, not any one thing in particular.

ie, tyrannical British rule was the way of the world, and had been around for a long time, but that does not make it right, or something they should have to tolerate.

I sez: eminent domain has been around for a long time, and is the way of the world, but that doesn't make it right.
What would you substitute, if eminent domain was abolished? In other words, imagine that a road was needed, but that one or more of the property owners in the road's projected path would not agree to sell their property. How would you suggest that such circumstances be resolved?
 

bassboy1

Senior Member
What would you substitute, if eminent domain was abolished? In other words, imagine that a road was needed, but that one or more of the property owners in the road's projected path would not agree to sell their property. How would you suggest that such circumstances be resolved?
Guess you better start asking the guy next door, and put a curve in the road.
 
I noticed that they interviewed no land owners that want a wall. A lot of them have been begging the Government to do something about illegals. Then you got the Tree huggers and the ones that want a windfall.
 
There again, just because it's in the Constitution, doesn't mean I think it should have been. Easier to say now than then, seeing the result over 230 years, but still true.

And my statement about the founding fathers not sharing elfiii's sentiment was not in regard to the 5th amendment, but instead a much broader view - things that have been around awhile in general, not any one thing in particular.

ie, tyrannical British rule was the way of the world, and had been around for a long time, but that does not make it right, or something they should have to tolerate.

I sez: eminent domain has been around for a long time, and is the way of the world, but that doesn't make it right.
Sorry, didn't see your name on the list of the Continental Congress. I'll go on Wikipedia and fix that!

I suspect old elfiii and I have forgotten more about the birth of America than you have ever learned.
 

Lilly001

Senior Member
Maybe we should just buy land south of the border in Mexico and build the wall there the Annex it. It would be cheaper and the Mexican government couldn't stop us.
 
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.
Would you be for eminent domain for the taking of one's land for the process of the county selling it for a more profitable tax making venture?
Example; A Hilton Head, SC, property with a run down house trailer on it.
The county using eminent domain to take the property for a condo producing millions in tax revenue vs the hundreds it was collecting?

Reminds me of when they built the Penthouse Casino around Vera Coking's house in Atlantic City. Later Trump used eminent domain to take her property.
All this and the Trump business eventually failed.
 
Last edited:
To me the answer or questioning would be if the wall went through the middle of one's land. I guess we all want what's in the best interest of the nation, state, county, or city until it affects us.
It's amazing how any of us feel about things until it concerns us personally. Eminent domain, abortion, addiction, a halfway house, sending our children to fight wars, sins, Medicaid qualifications, income tax loop holds, or whatever.

Meaning it's easy for us to say because it's not our property they are taking. I would assume some are far it and some are against it. Some will receive a fair market value and others will not.

Personally, I'm not there. Therefore, I'm for eminent domain. When it comes to taking freedoms that don't affect me, I'm for it. If it was my property, I may be against it.
That's the way freedoms work under the American mindset.

Right now I'm against abortion. I may be for it if my daughter get's pregnant. I'm also for sending young people to war. I might be against it if I had sons instead of daughters.
I also think it's wrong to wash assets to qualify for Medicaid. I may be for it when I need to qualify for Medicaid.
 
Last edited:
Would you be for eminent domain for the taking of one's land for the process of the county selling it for a more profitable tax making venture?
Example; A Hilton Head, SC, property with a run down house trailer on it.
The county using eminent domain to take the property for a condo producing millions in tax revenue vs the hundreds it was collecting?

Reminds me of when they built the Penthouse Casino around Vera Coking's house in Atlantic City. Later Trump used eminent domain to take her property.
All this and the Trump business eventually failed.
I'm not at all in favor of shenanigans like the ones you reference. Those are perversions of the intent of eminent domain.
 
Thread starter #32
.
Meaning it's easy for us to say because it's not our property they are taking. I would assume some are far it and some are against it. Some will receive a fair market value and others will not.
Maybe for some. Eminent Domain should be exercised only in cases where there is a clear, pressing, social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property and that's regardless of who's private property it is.

But we are way downstream from that now. Every Supreme that voted for Kelo v New London should have been removed from the court forthwith.
 
Maybe for some. Eminent Domain should be exercised only in cases where there is a clear, pressing, social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property and that's regardless of who's private property it is.

But we are way downstream from that now. Every Supreme that voted for Kelo v New London should have been removed from the court forthwith.
Elfiii has answered for me: "a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property." In other words, if the project doesn't have a truly justifiable benefit to the society as a whole it doesn't qualify for the exercise of eminent domain.
 
Elfiii has answered for me: "a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property." In other words, if the project doesn't have a truly justifiable benefit to the society as a whole it doesn't qualify for the exercise of eminent domain.
Then name an example of "a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property."

Definitive example.

Then, name an example of something that is just barely not "a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property."

I want to see what your idea of "a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property," is, and where you draw the line.
 
Thread starter #36
Then name an example of "a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property."

Definitive example.
Easy. The interstate highway system.

Then, name an example of something that is just barely not "a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property."

I want to see what your idea of "a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property," is, and where you draw the line.
Simple. Kelo v New London.

Now it's your turn. Name a definitive example of a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property. Any old good one will do.

Bet you can't name one. ::ke::bounce:
 
Easy. The interstate highway system.



Simple. Kelo v New London.

Now it's your turn. Name a definitive example of a clear, pressing social exigency that justifies the government's taking of private property. Any old good one will do.

Bet you can't name one. ::ke::bounce:
Hush, I asked White Horse.:whip:



And, I hope Kelo v. New London is not your example of just barely not. If that just inches across the line, I'd hate to see what would still remain on the opposite side.
 
Thread starter #39
Hush, I asked White Horse.:whip:



And, I hope Kelo v. New London is not your example of just barely not. If that just inches across the line, I'd hate to see what would still remain on the opposite side.
He's gonna say the same thing I said and you asked for clear examples. I gave you crystal clear examples both ways.

Now it's your turn. Name an "Is" and an "Isn't". Or just admit defeat on this point.:bounce:
 
He's gonna say the same thing I said and you asked for clear examples. I gave you crystal clear examples both ways.

Now it's your turn. Name an "Is" and an "Isn't". Or just admit defeat on this point.:bounce:
That's easy.

I can't think of a single purpose that justifies stealing private property, and the importance of the purpose has no impact on that decision.
 
Top