Eminent Domain

[Malte Runz]

"Eminent Domain is “a right of a government to take private property
for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign
power over all lands within its jurisdiction”"

https://freedomandeconomics.org/2019/01/05/eminent-domain/

The article argues:
"Eminent Domain is not only economically nonsensical. It is also an
act of theft and a blatant violation of justice. The foundation of a
free society is private property. If something is your private
property, you have the right to do with it as you please. This
includes not selling it to people. If the government can take your
land without your consent, then you truly do not own it."

Isn't that what the Second Amendment is there for? To form a well
regulated militia to fight back when the government steals what is
yours?

'Howdy sir. The government is going to expropriate several thousand
acres of your land, whether you like it or not, and we're going to pay
you whatever we think your land is worth. We're building this wall,
you see...'

[lock n' load]

--
Malte Runz

[Ted]

Yes, but the imbeciles didn't maintain the militia and so now they'll do as
they're told or else.

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 5:03:00 PM UTC-5, Malte Runz wrote:
> "Eminent Domain is “a right of a government to take private property
> for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign
> power over all lands within its jurisdiction”"
>
> https://freedomandeconomics.org/2019/01/05/eminent-domain/

[snip]

> 'Howdy sir. The government is going to expropriate several thousand
> acres of your land, whether you like it or not, and we're going to pay
> you whatever we think your land is worth. We're building this wall,
> you see...'
>
> [lock n' load]

A political question, unrelated to atheism, usually.

The Constitution does say there has to be just compensation,*
but the Kelo decision has SCOTUS going to far in allowing
takings for "public benefits" rather than just "public use."

Many states have amended their laws since, for stricter rules
than the Feds act under.

http://castlecoalition.org/tracking-eminent-domain-reform-legislation-since-kelo


* [quote]

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 offence 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.

[/quote] US Constitution, 5th Amendment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[vtand...@gmail.com]

ROTFL! The area surrounding the US-Mexico border is owned by the Federal government. That's why the Customs agents and Border Patrol are Federal
employees.

[Malte Runz]

https://tinyurl.com/lymsybb
***
The true test of the wall’s feasibility may boil down to property: The
government only owns about a third of the land along the nearly
2,000-mile border between Mexico and the United States, and obtaining
the rest would require untying a knot of legal and ownership issues.
***

Did you get it? About a third!


https://tinyurl.com/y7ngfgaa
***
Owners have already been notified of impending land expropriation – as
the US moves to build its Mexico border wall.
...
The American federal government is moving to seize private land in a
section of southern Texas to make room for US President Donald Trump's
border wall.
***

Why didn't you verify your claim before posting your reply? It would
have taken you less than two minutes to learn that you were wrong, and
it would have spared you yet another moment of embarrassment.

--
Malte Runz

[Scout]

"Ted" <t...@sam.street> wrote in message
news:1221514594569369313....@news.alt.net...

No, but the problem is that popular support is not on their side. Most
people want a wall on the Southern border.

[Malte Runz]

This tells a different story:

From the CATO Institute, referring to an article in The Federalist on
January 14th, 2019
https://tinyurl.com/y7hckdfd

"Averaging national public opinion polls conducted in 2018 reveals
that 6 in 10 Americans oppose building a border wall. But just a few
years ago, at least that many supported a wall."

But, do you think that the land owners, who own 2/3 of the land along
the border, are willingly going to 'sell' their land to the federal
government?

--
Malte Runz

[Don Martin]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:55:27 +0100, Malte Runz <nob...@busine.ss>
wrote:

. . . for the price _set_ by the Federal government?

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[Malte Runz]

I believe that is how it works. I've also read that it can be very
difficult to determine who actually owns the land in many cases, with
deeds going back to the Spanish land grants.

--
Malte Runz

[Ted]

Since when does that matter?

[Ted]

No human is illegal.

[Alex W.]

Another complication is that a significant portion of the border
actually consists of national parks. For one thing, this will mean
stiff opposition from nature lovers and conservationists. For another,
this land, albeit owned by government, operates under different rules
and may not simply be repurposed or taken over under Eminent Domain.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

PSHAW!

The wall is already partially built. It separates the high desert in East San Diego County from Mexico. Obviously, you are ignorant of that.

[Ted]

No humans are illegal. I already explained that to you.

[Malte Runz]

Do you still claim that "the area surrounding the US-Mexico border is
owned by the Federal government."? Or do you accept that you were
mistaken, and that 2/3 of the area is privately owned?

>
>The wall is already partially built. ...

654 miles of wall/fence/barrier. Only 1279 to go.
https://tinyurl.com/y9vw7tlw


> ... It separates the high desert in East San Diego County from Mexico. Obviously, you are ignorant of that.

Why do you think I didn't know that? It appears to have been you, who
were ignorant about who owns the land along the border, and now you
accuse me of not knowing what is pretty basic stuff. It's... I
mean... You're are grown man, dammit. Act like it.

--
Malte Runz

[vtand...@gmail.com]

You said the land is privately owned and the owners won't sell it.

[Ted]

Why do you think they should be forced to sell it?

[vtand...@gmail.com]

A sale is not necessary to put the wall up. American law allows something called an "easement." A landowner can grant the use of part of his land to another party without selling it.

[Ted]

Thanks for explaining, Joe.

[Malte Runz]

Again, do you now realize that not all the land around the border is
public land?

>> >
>> >The wall is already partially built. ...
>>
>> 654 miles of wall/fence/barrier. Only 1279 to go.
>> https://tinyurl.com/y9vw7tlw
>>
>>
>> > ... It separates the high desert in East San Diego County from Mexico. Obviously, you are ignorant of that.
>>
>> Why do you think I didn't know that? It appears to have been you, who
>> were ignorant about who owns the land along the border, and now you
>> accuse me of not knowing what is pretty basic stuff. It's... I
>> mean... You're are grown man, dammit. Act like it.
>>
>> --
>> Malte Runz
>

>You said the land is privately owned ...

I said some of the land would needed to be expropriated, and I linked
to my sources.

> ... and the owners won't sell it.

No I didn't (and you know I didn't). I asked if the Trump government
expected everyone to be okay with having to sell their land to said
government, whether they want to or not. I wondered if that scenario
wasn't what the 2nd Amendment was meant to counter.

What's your take on that?

--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

>A sale is not necessary to put the wall up. American law allows something called an "easement." ...

I haven't been able to find anyone suggesting that the government
seeks to obtain the right to build the wall on private property
through "easement". The terms 'expropriation' and 'eminent domain' are
used instead. But maybe you can provide a link...?

> ... A landowner can grant the use of part of his land to another party without selling it.

Can the same landowner refuse?

Here's a man, who I suspect couldn't give a fuck what the land grab is
called:

“Trump,” he says, “will build a wall on my land over my dead body.”
https://altaonline.com/who-owns-the-border/

--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:50:04 +0100, Malte Runz <nob...@busine.ss>
wrote:

(snip)

>I said some of the land would needed to be expropriated, and I linked
>to my sources.

Oh my god. Tandofsky has been right all along. My English grammar is
horrible!!!

--
Malte Runz

[Peter Pan]

An easement is more like access for utilities. In this
case, a right of way would be more appropriate.
Especially since a wall would need to be supported by a
road.

[Mitchell Holman]

vtand...@gmail.com wrote in
news:6050c506-f03e-441a...@googlegroups.com:

What part of land SEIZURE are you not grasping?



Feds moving ahead with land seizures for border wall
JUNE 21, 20183 PM

As a national debate raged about family
separations at the border, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection told a group of
South Texas officials earlier this week
that the federal government plans to move
forward with private land seizures in the
Rio Grande Valley to build sections of

President Donald Trump’s border wall.

"They said that they got the money, they
got the authority and they’re going to
move on trying to acquire the land," said
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat
who attended the briefing in McAllen of a
few dozen officials from cities, counties
and foreign trade zones along the Texas-
Mexico border.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/21/feds-moving-forward-land-
seizures-border-wall/

[Ted]

You're indistinguishable from a native speaker, Malte.

[Peter Pan]

Land is condemned via eminent domain all the time by
various levels of government. It's a routine thing. Land
has to be bought for roads, airports, public buildings,
ports, pipelines, etc. It would be undemocratic for a
few people to prevent public projects.

A wall wouldn't be any different. No court is going to
rule that federal government access to international
borders is not a matter of public interest.

Whether a wall will help or not is a different issue.
Property and/or ROWs is a big part of the cost of many
projects, but otherwise it's not that big of an issue.

When I was in college I rented a shack on land that was
condemned for a new expressway. We had 3 or 4 years
notice, and i didn't plan to live there forever anyway.
It wasn't a big deal for me. Others are more impacted.
That's the price of progress.

[Kevrob]

Try refusing to put in a sidewalk on "your" property
if your municipality's board votes to install them.
They may hit you with a special property tax assessment
to pay for it.

> Here's a man, who I suspect couldn't give a fuck what
> the land grab is called:
>
> “Trump,” he says, “will build a wall on my land over my dead body.”
> https://altaonline.com/who-owns-the-border/

Trump was infamously in favor of broad public domain
powers for local government as a "private businessman" -
"crony capitalist" is a better descriptor. I suspect
he'll try to stretch federal powers to achieve his aims.

[Malte Runz]

I agree, and I know that it is common practice.

>
>A wall wouldn't be any different. No court is going to
>rule that federal government access to international
>borders is not a matter of public interest.

I'm sure the courts are going to 'do the right thing', but it could
also turn into a prepper's wet dream.

>
>Whether a wall will help or not is a different issue.
>Property and/or ROWs is a big part of the cost of many
>projects, but otherwise it's not that big of an issue.
>
>When I was in college I rented a shack on land that was
>condemned for a new expressway. We had 3 or 4 years
>notice, and i didn't plan to live there forever anyway.
>It wasn't a big deal for me. Others are more impacted.
>That's the price of progress.

And I wonder if it is a price everyone is willing to pay.

--
Malte Runz

[vtand...@gmail.com]

A seizure under eminent domain is subject to review by the courts.
The landowner can fight it in court. All he need do is file a lawsuit in the Federal District Court closest to him.
The judge will then make a ruling.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

The Feds are getting bad legal advice from somewhere. Seizing the land is not necessary. The landowner could grant the government an EASEMENT

It's all right here:

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=603

[Mitchell Holman]

vtand...@gmail.com wrote in
news:8584b759-bcdf-4b26...@googlegroups.com:

If you had stayed in law school you would
learned that the courts only litigate the value
of the land, not the seizure of it. If the
government can prove it needs it they will take
it.

"Here's your check, you have 30 days to
clear off".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_States

[Peter Pan]

We are lucky if courts do the right thing 50% of the
time.

What's a prepper?

> >Whether a wall will help or not is a different issue.
> >Property and/or ROWs is a big part of the cost of many
> >projects, but otherwise it's not that big of an issue.
> >
> >When I was in college I rented a shack on land that was
> >condemned for a new expressway. We had 3 or 4 years
> >notice, and i didn't plan to live there forever anyway.
> >It wasn't a big deal for me. Others are more impacted.
> >That's the price of progress.
>
> And I wonder if it is a price everyone is willing to pay.

Not everyone agrees on anything. Especially if it's a
controversial project like trump's wall.

If there are some people that are happy about everything,
there's a system that's seriously fucked up. :)

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Perhaps. That's why court decisions at the trial and appeal level may be appealed to a higher court.

[Malte Runz]

https://www.beprepared.com/preppers-guide-to-survival
Few a fond of the government, and they are also heavily armed in most
cases.

(snip)

--
Malte Runz

[Siri Cruise]

In article <XnsA9DC8238918...@216.166.97.131>,

Many of these cases are the wall straightenning the border. The condemned
property is a strip in the middle of a farm separating the fields with a barrier
difficult to cross as part of routine farm activity. Also sometimes homes and
other signficant structure will be on the wrong side wall.

I lost a wee bit of the lot when the city built a curb and sidewalk on one edge.
No biggie. The fire department still responded to my house after the curb was
erected.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Peter Pan]

Oh, yeah. That kind of preppers.

They will probably pack a grappling hook so they can flee
to Mexico.