saxdog

The wall ain't so beautiful when Trump takes your land

Recommended Posts

The needs of the many (to have entertainment) outweigh the needs of the few (to keep their land).    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Ted Cruz is not popular now just wait until he is the face of the land grab.  As to Trump? His supporters liked him because he wasn't from the Government. Now? uh, kiss your fat ass goodbye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not so much the wall / fence / barrier, it's the access roads and lighting requirements that take up so much space.  even for sensor towers.

the iirira of 2006 lays it out pretty well.  and the act has won every eminent domain case against it so far.  right up to the supreme court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not fun fighting a condemnation by the local power company. Imagine how much fun it's going to be fighting the Feds for land that's been in your family since Texas left Mexico.  Look for news stories out of Texas beginning with "Ya know I voted for Trump but now..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, saxdog said:

 Look for news stories out of Texas beginning with "Ya know I voted for Trump but now..."

Look for a lot of responses like "Then fuckem'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hermetic said:

it's not so much the wall / fence / barrier, it's the access roads and lighting requirements that take up so much space.  even for sensor towers.

the iirira of 2006 lays it out pretty well.  and the act has won every eminent domain case against it so far.  right up to the supreme court

The point isn't that the government can or cannot win these cases, the point is the Big Bad Federal Government is Taking My Land and usually if Democrats are involved this calls for an armed revolt or at least a lot of freaking out. Now if Trump is doing it..................cognitive dissonance will kill hundreds :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking land from lifetime republicans. Hmm, why the hell not?

I mean, it's republicans that want the wall, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Taking land from lifetime republicans. Hmm, why the hell not?

I mean, it's republicans that want the wall, right?

A Win/Win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who's land is grabbed will be happy, cause they are doing it for the good of the country, right?  Just like the furloughed gov workers who like it, and the farmers who can't sell soybeans, and the former Harley, Carrier and GM employees are all happy to 'take one for the team'.   This level of fantasy is amazing.  

BTW, the federal government only owns 1/3 of the 2000 miles of border; that's about 1200 miles of land grab necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
52 minutes ago, hermetic said:

it's not so much the wall / fence / barrier, it's the access roads and lighting requirements that take up so much space.  even for sensor towers.

the iirira of 2006 lays it out pretty well.  and the act has won every eminent domain case against it so far.  right up to the supreme court

The point isn't that the government can or cannot win these cases, the point is the Big Bad Federal Government is Taking My Land and usually if Democrats are involved this calls for an armed revolt or at least a lot of freaking out. Now if Trump is doing it..................cognitive dissonance will kill hundreds

yeah I get it.   but keep in mind the act has been used for taking land for this project since 2006.  I don't remember reading of citizens shooting at the contractors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming soon to a land grab near you. "Mr. Trump needs your land for an emergency on the Southern border."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it looks like the dumb ass has painted himself into a corner and declaring a state of emergency is his only way out-- that will probably make seizing land from the dumb asses that voted for him easier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hermetic said:

yeah I get it.   but keep in mind the act has been used for taking land for this project since 2006.  I don't remember reading of citizens shooting at the contractors

There will be some Bundy families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

 

I was just going to say that there must be something in Blazibg Saddles that covers this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseyguy said:

I was just going to say that there must be something in Blazing Saddles that covers this.

There is something in Blazing Saddles to cover everything.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

There is something in Blazing Saddles to cover everything.  

Or Young Frankenstein.

There ought to be a college course on the philosophy of Mel Brooks as seen through his movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

it's not so much the wall / fence / barrier, it's the access roads and lighting requirements that take up so much space.  even for sensor towers.

the iirira of 2006 lays it out pretty well.  and the act has won every eminent domain case against it so far.  right up to the supreme court

On 1/10/2019 at 12:49 PM, dogballs Tom said:
On 1/10/2019 at 12:33 PM, hermetic said:

no need for a declaration of emergency to take property for the "wall" (and it's required roads), that path is already included in the IIRIRA

and it has a 100% survival rate in federal courts (the supreme's declined to address it)

The thing about that is the part of that law that says:
 

Quote

 

(ii) Savings provision.
-
Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to
-
(I)  create  or  negate  any  right  of  action  for  a  State,  local  government,  or
other person or entity affected by this subsection; or

(II) affect the eminent domain laws of the United States or of any State.

 

Taking that property would seem to affect those laws, whether by the "military version" or the regular one. Which, if either, do you prefer?

Military or civilian?

I think the Supremes might just read that bolded part, even if others uncited did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would now like to call the Texas NRA meeting to order.

What we long feared has come to pass. The heavy hand of unaccountable oppressive federal government and their thugs are coming to take land owned by American citizens. We cannot let this outrage stand! This is exactly why we defend the 2nd Amendment and exactly why we each have 3,712 guns in our houses and 917 more in our cars and 29 more on our persons at all times. This is why we each store 95 tons of ammo in our basements. This is why we have bumpstocks on our bumpstocks.

Let's mount up and get going!

<Everyone looks confused, mutters, mills around, and no one heads out the door>

Member 1: Ain't we supposed ta be shootin Democrats?

Member 2: Iffin we caint do that, ain't we at least shootin liberals?

Member 3: What about them danged Mexicans? Who gets to shoot them?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

it's not so much the wall / fence / barrier, it's the access roads and lighting requirements that take up so much space.  even for sensor towers.

the iirira of 2006 lays it out pretty well.  and the act has won every eminent domain case against it so far.  right up to the supreme court

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 12:49 PM, dogballs Tom said:
On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 12:33 PM, hermetic said:

no need for a declaration of emergency to take property for the "wall" (and it's required roads), that path is already included in the IIRIRA

and it has a 100% survival rate in federal courts (the supreme's declined to address it)

The thing about that is the part of that law that says:
 

Quote

 

(ii) Savings provision.
-
Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to
-
(I)  create  or  negate  any  right  of  action  for  a  State,  local  government,  or
other person or entity affected by this subsection; or

(II) affect the eminent domain laws of the United States or of any State.

 

Taking that property would seem to affect those laws, whether by the "military version" or the regular one. Which, if either, do you prefer?

Military or civilian?

I think the Supremes might just read that bolded part, even if others uncited did not.

how do the rights of those land owners who's land will be grabbed in the future differ from the rights of those whose land has already been grabbed and litigated?

it's all about determining value for the courts

wall, fence, barrier, or sensor tower - the mix depends on whose plan gets funding - the lands gonna get grabbed via eminent domain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hermetic said:

how do the rights of those land owners who's land will be grabbed in the future differ from the rights of those whose land has already been grabbed and litigated?

Are we talking about the military or civilian version of eminent domain?
Has any land been grabbed by the former route?

Which do you prefer, by the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Are we talking about the military or civilian version of eminent domain?
Has any land been grabbed by the former route?

Which do you prefer, by the way?

The build and kick you out now, settle up in court later (you hope) system is reminiscent of what pissed off a lot of people in the late 1700s ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I would now like to call the Texas NRA meeting to order.

What we long feared has come to pass. The heavy hand of unaccountable oppressive federal government and their thugs are coming to take land owned by American citizens. We cannot let this outrage stand! This is exactly why we defend the 2nd Amendment and exactly why we each have 3,712 guns in our houses and 917 more in our cars and 29 more on our persons at all times. This is why we each store 95 tons of ammo in our basements. This is why we have bumpstocks on our bumpstocks.

Let's mount up and get going!

<Everyone looks confused, mutters, mills around, and no one heads out the door>

Member 1: Ain't we supposed ta be shootin Democrats?

Member 2: Iffin we caint do that, ain't we at least shootin liberals?

Member 3: What about them danged Mexicans? Who gets to shoot them?

Ah yes... The need to "defend ourselves from a tyrannical government" comes up again.  This should take focus away from shooting up abandoned kitchen appliances. 

Maybe. No promises.

Oh.. And I do not support bans on assault weapons.  I've got a quota to meet on mentioning my gun views for Tom. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The build and kick you out now, settle up in court later (you hope) system is reminiscent of what pissed off a lot of people in the late 1700s ;)

That depends.

On 12/15/2017 at 11:11 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Taking land at the border for border security seems as legit a use of eminent domain as can be

If we're talking about the civilian version, that is. Even in that case,  as noted elsewhere,

Quote

the record of previous condemnations for border barriers shows that the Department of Homeland Security has a notorious history of violating procedural rights and shortchanging property owners on the compensation they are due under the Constitution. The same sorts of abuses are likely to recur on a larger scale if Trump gets the money to build his much more extensive wall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kirwan said:

The people who's land is grabbed will be happy, cause they are doing it for the good of the country, right? 

Some people whose land is grabbed don't appear all that happy.

On 1/14/2018 at 6:42 PM, dogballs Tom said:

there's a beautiful, vacant tract where a little pink house once stood.

539w.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Are we talking about the military or civilian version of eminent domain?
Has any land been grabbed by the former route?

Which do you prefer, by the way?

I'm talking about the version used in the iirira

I don't know the difference between versions used in military and civilian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

I'm talking about the version used in the iirira

I don't know the difference between versions used in military and civilian

That would be the civilian version.

I don't think Trump or anyone else knows anything about the military version.

But I see some issues even with the civilian version, even in an application where it's appropriate.

3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I know some don't click links and read, so here are the findings:

 

Quote

 

A just-published study conducted by ProPublica and the Texas Tribune analyzed over 400 condemnations undertaken as a result of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of a much smaller barrier than Trump's proposed wall. Here is their summary of their findings:

An investigation by ProPublica and the Texas Tribune shows that [the Department of] Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners, and ultimately abused the government's extraordinary power to take land from private citizens.

The major findings:

  • Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values.
  • Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests.
  • The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government's mistakes.
  • The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process.
  • On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners.
  • Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value.

 

 
I used to tow gliders at Kendall Gliderport on Sundays. We had a grass runway about 5,000 feet long and a concrete hangar with reinforced concrete roof. And by "we" I mean my boss, or I did mean that at the time.
Back when she owned it, it was worth over a million dollars. And then one day, the government decided it would be a nice addition to the Everglades National Park. And the government was right, it would.
The thing is, the NEXT day is when they did the market valuation of the property. The market has very little interest in a property that's going to be taken, so the value was WAAAAY less than a million.
Is that just compensation? Last I heard, my old boss was still fighting over that question.


What do you think of the history of "just" compensation and paying attention to little details like where a property line actually is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Some people whose land is grabbed don't appear all that happy.

On 1/14/2018 at 6:42 PM, dogballs Tom said:

there's a beautiful, vacant tract where a little pink house once stood.

539w.jpg

 

Kelo lost in the Supreme Court, hermetic.

Do you agree with Trump and the liberal majority on that result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, saxdog said:

Here's how to unite the left and right:

And here's the question that unites them in silence:

Do you agree with Trump and the liberal majority on that result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

That would be the civilian version.

I don't think Trump or anyone else knows anything about the military version.

But I see some issues even with the civilian version, even in an application where it's appropriate.


What do you think of the history of "just" compensation and paying attention to little details like where a property line actually is?

I would consider it typical corps of engineers ineptitude, and a matter for the courts to straighten out

as I said upthread, the grabbing is going to happen - even for non-wall projects - it's all about value of the grabbed property

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I would now like to call the Texas NRA meeting to order.

What we long feared has come to pass. The heavy hand of unaccountable oppressive federal government and their thugs are coming to take land owned by American citizens. We cannot let this outrage stand! This is exactly why we defend the 2nd Amendment and exactly why we each have 3,712 guns in our houses and 917 more in our cars and 29 more on our persons at all times. This is why we each store 95 tons of ammo in our basements. This is why we have bumpstocks on our bumpstocks.

Let's mount up and get going!

<Everyone looks confused, mutters, mills around, and no one heads out the door>

Member 1: Ain't we supposed ta be shootin Democrats?

Member 2: Iffin we caint do that, ain't we at least shootin liberals?

Member 3: What about them danged Mexicans? Who gets to shoot them?

 

 

Yeah because that’s what gun owners do. We sit around and, in pigeon English, talk about shooting Democrats and liberals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Yeah because that’s what gun owners do. We sit around and, in pigeon English, talk about shooting Democrats and liberals. 

That’s what some do here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Yeah because that’s what gun owners do. We sit around and, in pigeon English, talk about shooting Democrats and liberals. 

Well I own a gun and and don't do any of that, so obviously the number is not 100%. That was satire, I doubt the NRA would ever officially in writing promote shooting Democrats.  I do get some grim humor out of their decades-long spankfest over the 2nd amendment resist tyranical government shtick when it is obvious they will do no such thing if it is Tyranny (R) :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Well I own a gun and and don't do any of that, so obviously the number is not 100%. That was satire, I doubt the NRA would ever officially in writing promote shooting Democrats.  I do get some grim humor out of their decades-long spankfest over the 2nd amendment resist tyranical government shtick when it is obvious they will do no such thing if it is Tyranny (R) :rolleyes:

"they" did no such thing when Tyranny (D) did it in years past under the iirira.  so at least "they" will be consistent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hermetic said:

I would consider it typical corps of engineers ineptitude, and a matter for the courts to straighten out

as I said upthread, the grabbing is going to happen - even for non-wall projects - it's all about value of the grabbed property

And I think some of that goes beyond ineptitude and into unfair.

Quote


  • Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values.
  • Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests.

 

  •  
Not to mention regressive and troubling.
And predictable.
7 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
Quote

 The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal” programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect “discrete and insular minorities,” United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse.

The bolded part seems to me completely predictable. Does it seem that way to you?

 

 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the “slum-clearance” project upheld by this Court in Berman were black.

But hey, if it results in more jobs and increased tax revenue when we displace all those black people, that's a public use! Which is why Justice Thomas noted the above in dissent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 12:48 PM, saxdog said:

Can we all unite around Justice Thomas' take on it?

Quote

The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal” programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect “discrete and insular minorities,” United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we don't unite around Justice Thomas, that would seem to leave uniting around Trump and the liberal majority in Kelo.

Which shall it be?

On 1/10/2019 at 4:55 AM, dogballs Tom said:
On 1/6/2019 at 9:50 AM, SailBlueH2O said:

interstate.jpg

Does this post have a point?

Was the military version of eminent domain used for those roads?

And what do you think about the normal version?

Do you agree with Trump and the liberal majority about the Kelo case?


I'm going to take a wild guess that SailBlue won't answer that last question, nor will saxdog. Let's see if I'm right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 12:48 PM, saxdog said:

From the article:

Quote

 

One thing we have learned over the past few years is that the abuse of the eminent domain power is a powerful unifying force for people of radically different backgrounds and political beliefs. For proof of that, the Texans in question need only to look a few degrees north to Nebraska, and the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, the continent-spanning death funnel and conservative fetish object. There are serious environmental concerns about the pipeline, but what galvanized mass opposition was the attempt by TransCanada, the energy behemoth that was trying to build the death-funnel, in conjunction with much of the Nebraska political establishment, to seize private property for their project. All of a sudden, way out in their fields, farmers began to see strange people in suits, carrying clipboards and behaving like they owned the place.

This is what brought together conservative farmers and liberal greens. This is what brought together, literally, cowboys and Indians.

 

Everyone somehow finds his way into the libertarian tent when it's his property being looted by government.  The lady quoted in the article said she didn't like the wall because she's being evicted by it. That's politics being local.

Interesting that Keystone was mentioned.

On 1/25/2017 at 12:43 AM, dogballs Tom said:

 

Keystone = Kelo + Oil

 

Trump was very clear during the campaign that he's a fan of eminent domain and the Kelo decision. His voters hardly have reason to be surprised. Guns.

A privately owned pipeline is a public use because it increases tax revenue. See Kelo.

And this is where nutty libertarians say: a road is one thing because the public uses it. A pipeline is another because we don't and we can tell by the lack of revenue flowing into our bank accounts from it. There are people with that revenue. THEY are using it. Not the public. And they can pay for it. And if some Uncooperative land owner sees what's happening and holds them over a barrel, that's capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 4:48 AM, saxdog said:

Here's how to unite the left and right:

Nope. That requires the right to concede they were wrong cheering for the wall. Assuming that for some block-headed reason the country keeps Trump around long enough for this to matter, the Texans will lose their case ("national security" is exactly one of the reasons use of eminent domain powers would be accepted by SCOTUS, the only thing that they can alter is the price they get for it) and it'll be just another thing the US left will add to the "well, you voted for him, deal with it - we have to" pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
On 1/11/2019 at 12:48 PM, saxdog said:

Here's how to unite the left and right:

Nope. That requires the right to concede they were wrong cheering for the wall. Assuming that for some block-headed reason the country keeps Trump around long enough for this to matter, the Texans will lose their case ("national security" is exactly one of the reasons use of eminent domain powers would be accepted by SCOTUS, the only thing that they can alter is the price they get for it) and it'll be just another thing the US left will add to the "well, you voted for him, deal with it - we have to" pile.

Many TeamR types used to disapprove of the Kelo result. Then Trump said he liked it and now they're silent.

Similarly, all one has to say is that Trump likes it and TeamD types are speechless. Agree with the liberal majority of the court and Trump or agree with Thomas? Silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I do not agree with the Kelo ruling.  

Eminent Domain is misused too often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saxdog said:

 I do not agree with the Kelo ruling.  

Eminent Domain is misused too often. 

Out of curiosity, do you disagree with it from a legal or moral standpoint? I don't think there is much disagreement that eminent domain gets misused (though people disagree as to when); but I think that people tend to baulk when it comes to saying that "public use" is a clearly defined, unambiguous term that cannot possibly include economic revitalisation projects.

There are a lot of things that are legally allowed, but unfair. I think eminent domain falls under that umbrella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 6:43 AM, chinabald said:

Yeah because that’s what gun owners do. We sit around and, in pigeon English, talk about shooting Democrats and liberals. 

Department of redundancy department?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s missing here ^^^^^ is the understanding that patriots will, in addition to giving up their land for very little (if anything) to El Puerco (his Porcineness), they will also: work for free, give up their lives, kill children, and go bankrupt to support His Fiat.  These are all against the Constitution, but as I understand it, that’s  thrown out the window when it’s cofeve.  I mean, ick! ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Agree with the liberal majority of the court and Trump or agree with Thomas? Silence.

 

4 hours ago, saxdog said:

 I do not agree with the Kelo ruling.  

Eminent Domain is misused too often. 

Close, but disagreeing with Trump is easy in this case. The result isn't very popular even with liberals and Trump supports it? Easy to disagree.

Now for the hard one:

Do you agree with the statements quoted from Justice Thomas' dissent?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I don't think there is much disagreement that eminent domain gets misused (though people disagree as to when); but I think that people tend to baulk when it comes to saying that "public use" is a clearly defined, unambiguous term that cannot possibly include economic revitalisation projects.

I think it is such a term, which is why the courts decided that "public purpose" is the same thing. It's not.

23 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Economically distressed people need revitalizing more than others. Or, put another way,

Quote

The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal” programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect “discrete and insular minorities,” United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse.

Problem is, Pfizer went away, the jobs never materialized, and feral cats now rule the vacant neighborhood where a non-distressed pink house once stood.

But they did clear out all the economically distressed people. You know the code, right?

Quote

Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the “slum-clearance” project upheld by this Court in Berman were black.

 


If you kick out all the poor, black people and give property to people with money who develop it, there will be more jobs and tax revenue. But it's only public service in the sense that a bull services a cow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly Trump is abusing Eminent Domain.

Major league teams using it through municipalities to build stadiums are abusing Eminent Domain.

My problem with the concept is the corruption in the process.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 6:43 AM, chinabald said:

Yeah because that’s what gun owners do. We sit around and, in pigeon English, talk about shooting Democrats and liberals. 

That's "pidgin" English, unless you are talking to a bunch of birds.

Quote

Pidgin English is a non-specific name used to refer to any of the many pidgin languages derived from English. Pidgins that are spoken as first languages become creoles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-based_pidgins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, saxdog said:

Clearly Trump is abusing Eminent Domain.

 Major league teams using it through municipalities to build stadiums are abusing Eminent Domain.

My problem with the concept is the corruption in the process.

Don't disagree. Which is an argument from a moral standpoint. One which I share about the legal principle in general. Sadly the law isn't specific enough to stop that. Almost like the Constitution was written with an incorrect view regarding the honesty of politicians and their capability to twist legal ambiguity to their ends. 

That to the side, I sort of repeat myself when I say, I don't think anyone really disagrees from a moral standpoint. It just has very little (nothing?) preventing it from a legal one given national security and border security are easily regarded as public good / public purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recognize the need for governments to acquire property for legitimate purposes.

This is dangerous power should be used for strictly limited purposes when a viable alternative does not exist. Phony emergencies invented by politicians, the owners of major league sports teams, and private developers, among other abusers, do not meet that standard in my view. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, saxdog said:

I recognize the need for governments to acquire property for legitimate purposes.

This is dangerous power should be used for strictly limited purposes when a viable alternative does not exist. Phony emergencies invented by politicians, the owners of major league sports teams, and private developers, among other abusers, do not meet that standard in my view. 

Sure, and I agree with you. However, we're agreeing on the moral arguments only. As I see it, fucked up as it might be, the law is not in our favour because the Constitution merely requires the property is taken for "public use" and with "just compensation".

Hell, "the wall" is even less amenable to argument than the sports stadiums and other private developments. As long as Trump spends enough tax payer dollars to pay off the current land owners, he's in the clear. Even if you think it's a stupid and ineffective idea, it isn't a legally solid argument to claim that the border wall isn't "public use" of the land for (as per SCOTUS precedent) the "public good". The sole thing left is whether their compensation is "just". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not pretending to argue whether or not this power is Constitutional.  The Supreme Court has ruled it is. So, yes, I am making a moral objection not one based on my understanding of the law. I do recognize my naivete in this matter. 

Making this an argument about who is a dishonest liberal turns this into a shit fight instead of an honest debate about whether the Constitution should be amended to change it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
11 hours ago, saxdog said:

I recognize the need for governments to acquire property for legitimate purposes.

This is dangerous power should be used for strictly limited purposes when a viable alternative does not exist. Phony emergencies invented by politicians, the owners of major league sports teams, and private developers, among other abusers, do not meet that standard in my view. 

Sure, and I agree with you. However, we're agreeing on the moral arguments only. As I see it, fucked up as it might be, the law is not in our favour because the Constitution merely requires the property is taken for "public use" and with "just compensation".

So when Keystone builds a pipeline for profit or Pfizer launches a development for profit, is that a public use?

Keep in mind, it will displace economically disadvantaged people and create jobs and bring in tax revenue, all of which are awesome for the public (except for the economically disadvantaged ones.) It's a public purpose. Is that a public use? Or do the words mean different things?

 

13 hours ago, phillysailor said:

A situation designed not to keep the peace or protect the public, but ultimately to emasculate and defang a racial group. Just look at the varying statistics for incarceration rates by race for identical crimes

Not as lopsided as eminent domain forfeiture rates. Economically disadvantaged people who are in an inconvenient location for developers often have a certain hue...

Quote

Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the “slum-clearance” project upheld by this Court in Berman were black.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

So when Keystone builds a pipeline for profit or Pfizer launches a development for profit, is that a public use?

Keep in mind, it will displace economically disadvantaged people and create jobs and bring in tax revenue, all of which are awesome for the public (except for the economically disadvantaged ones.) It's a public purpose. Is that a public use? Or do the words mean different things?

 

Not as lopsided as eminent domain forfeiture rates. Economically disadvantaged people who are in an inconvenient location for developers often have a certain hue...

 

Do you have a point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Do you have a point?

Yes, but it's not mine. It was

On 1/13/2019 at 7:29 AM, dogballs Tom said:

suggested by Justice Thomas:

Quote

Once one permits takings for public purposes in addition to public uses, no coherent principle limits what could constitute a valid public use—at least, none beyond Justice O’Connor’s (entirely proper) appeal to the text of the Constitution itself.

...

I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yes, but it's not mine. It was

 

So, you don’t really. Didn’t think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property.

This feels better but does not include a test to determine the legitimacy of the anticipated public use. I have no idea how one could accomplish that test. The wall is proving we cannot count on the integrity of the members of whatever political party is presently in power to make that determination alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, saxdog said:

This feels better but does not include a test to determine the legitimacy of the anticipated public use. I have no idea how one could accomplish that test. The wall is proving we cannot count on the integrity of the members of whatever political party is presently in power to make that determination alone.

here's the thing: you can't legislate integrity and honesty. You have to vote for it. The adultchildren of the US elected a conman.

children like dogballs whine about eminent domain for years but never support people who will be in a position to do something about it; they support tokenists, charlatans, attention whores and hacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some decisions like zoning variances are made by boards who are, at least in theory,  independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, saxdog said:

Some decisions like zoning variances are made by boards who are, at least in theory,  independent.

Theory. In our town there was a decade when, if you had a bit of a challenge for a design, you just needed the right architect firm. Of the 5 people on the design review committee, 2 were local architects. 

Fortunately, the city board disbanded the design review board.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saxdog said:
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property.

This feels better but does not include a test to determine the legitimacy of the anticipated public use. I have no idea how one could accomplish that test. The wall is proving we cannot count on the integrity of the members of whatever political party is presently in power to make that determination alone.

I think it does include such a test: is the government using it? Can the public use it? If either or both answer is yes, it's a public use. If not, it might just be a project like the ones I mentioned.

I think border security facilities of all kinds are things the government can use, and that would include walls. Building a wall across our remote deserts would be environmentally harmful, ineffective, a monument to stupidity and xenophobia, and legitimate. At least in my view. The government can put a wall there. That's an eminent domain question. If it's currently private, owners are due just compensation. That's a fifth amendment question too.

Is it a good idea, in addition to being constitutionally legitimate? I'd say no, but who listens to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think it does include such a test: is the government using it? Can the public use it? If either or both answer is yes, it's a public use. If not, it might just be a project like the ones I mentioned.

I think border security facilities of all kinds are things the government can use, and that would include walls. Building a wall across our remote deserts would be environmentally harmful, ineffective, a monument to stupidity and xenophobia, and legitimate. At least in my view. The government can put a wall there. That's an eminent domain question. If it's currently private, owners are due just compensation. That's a fifth amendment question too.

Is it a good idea, in addition to being constitutionally legitimate? I'd say no, but who listens to me?

Do you have a dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Do you have a point?

Yes, he's trying to bait me into a conversation about the subject having been told why I don't think he's worth it. Same point he usually has really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saxdog said:

Some decisions like zoning variances are made by boards who are, at least in theory,  independent.

And the legal definition of "public use" is left to SCOTUS justices who are, at least in theory, independent. Jiblets is right in that one cannot legislate honesty and integrity in politicians - that is on the voters to pick their candidates & vote responsibly. And, well, you guys have Trump as a president... so yeah, clearly the voters are holding up their end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Raz'r said:
17 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yes, but it's not mine. It was

On 1/13/2019 at 7:29 AM, dogballs Tom said:

suggested by Justice Thomas:

Quote

Once one permits takings for public purposes in addition to public uses, no coherent principle limits what could constitute a valid public use—at least, none beyond Justice O’Connor’s (entirely proper) appeal to the text of the Constitution itself.

...

I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property.

 

 

So, you don’t really. Didn’t think so.

I have an opinion about Justice Thomas' take on the fifth amendment. I share it. Public purpose does not mean public use.

Others have gossip about me.

So I'd say we all have something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 1:45 PM, saxdog said:

I'm not pretending to argue whether or not this power is Constitutional.  The Supreme Court has ruled it is. So, yes, I am making a moral objection not one based on my understanding of the law. I do recognize my naivete in this matter. 

Making this an argument about who is a dishonest liberal turns this into a shit fight instead of an honest debate about whether the Constitution should be amended to change it.

Honest debate? Now there is some naivete. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 1:26 PM, dogballs Tom said:

And this is where nutty libertarians say: a road is one thing because the public uses it. A pipeline is another because we don't and we can tell by the lack of revenue flowing into our bank accounts from it. There are people with that revenue. THEY are using it. Not the public. And they can pay for it. And if some Uncooperative land owner sees what's happening and holds them over a barrel, that's capitalism.

No, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is where the ULO holds them over a barrel, and they send in the brute squad.

This middle-ground where the government intercedes on behalf of big businesses like this is generally known as fascism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:
On 1/13/2019 at 9:26 PM, dogballs Tom said:

And if some Uncooperative land owner sees what's happening and holds them over a barrel, that's capitalism.

No, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is where the ULO holds them over a barrel, and they send in the brute squad. 

I think that would be anarchy. Protecting the rights of property owners from brute squads is a proper role for government.

Developers want to grab property without paying a market rate by saying their development is beneficial, like a road. It's not like a road unless we're talking about a privately owned toll road. In that case, I'd say if someone wants to build a road to make money off it, he can pay whatever owners want to charge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think that would be anarchy. Protecting the rights of property owners from brute squads is a proper role for government.

Developers want to grab property without paying a market rate by saying their development is beneficial, like a road. It's not like a road unless we're talking about a privately owned toll road. In that case, I'd say if someone wants to build a road to make money off it, he can pay whatever owners want to charge.

No, anarchy is where the brute squad goes in first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, saxdog said:

Some decisions like zoning variances are made by boards who are, at least in theory,  independent.

Other consequential decisions are also local.

For example, how much is a property worth? We have a county property appraiser's office to answer that question. They come out here and drive around to see what's here and tax us based on the value of land and buildings.

The general practice of Florida property appraisers is to shoot a bit low, so people don't come in and argue that their property is worth less than the appraised value. That has been my experience with ours, more or less.

So a pretty good shot at "just compensation" if my property were the target of an eminent domain action would be "appraised value plus 2%" or something like that. That's probably what I could sell it for if I decided to sell. The problem comes when government or developers don't like that price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 10:12 AM, kent_island_sailor said:

Well I own a gun and and don't do any of that, so obviously the number is not 100%. That was satire, I doubt the NRA would ever officially in writing promote shooting Democrats.  I do get some grim humor out of their decades-long spankfest over the 2nd amendment resist tyranical government shtick when it is obvious they will do no such thing if it is Tyranny (R) :rolleyes:

Remember kids, its only Tyranny if liberals do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 1:45 PM, saxdog said:

I'm not pretending to argue whether or not this power is Constitutional.  The Supreme Court has ruled it is. So, yes, I am making a moral objection not one based on my understanding of the law. I do recognize my naivete in this matter. 

Making this an argument about who is a dishonest liberal turns this into a shit fight instead of an honest debate about whether the Constitution should be amended to change it.

I don't disagree, but you'll note some people are focused on the how to parse a dissent, what the exact definition of "public use" is when uttered by an angel on the head of a pin, etc. Not interested in that argument. As the law stands, eminent domain already gives Trump the power to take the land, he doesn't need an emergency for that. He needs an emergency to find the money to pay a "just" price for it, but that's it.

As to how eminent domain can be used under the current law, I agree it is too broad. Thing is, it would require a constitutional amendment to rectify and that's not going to happen as long as the corporate free speech and second amendment guys are still donating to the right people. Any amendments remind the people they have the power to fix things. Too much power caught up in the way things are to let that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

As to how eminent domain can be used under the current law, I agree it is too broad. Thing is, it would require a constitutional amendment to rectify

I'd suggest one that said private property could be taken for public use with just compensation.

But then people might argue about what that meant. The horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites