If the Federal Government wanted to make a new planned city, would they be able to use Eminent Domain?
If the Federal Government wanted to make a new planned city, would they be able to use Eminent Domain?
Not sure if that would count as "for ends of public utility". Anyone experienced in this field? This would take a city size amount of farmland for the downtown and most of the city (I think any small towns caught up in the boundaries would be incorporated into it).
This would be kicked off with federal offices, but not necessarily political capitol. There are a ton of federal jobs that really don't need to be located in a high cost of living area.
The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625,[5] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for "supreme ownership") and described the power as follows:
The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or those who act for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But, when this is done, the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Just finished listening and have to say that was incredibly bias and wilfully withholding discussion. The obvious other part to me is "just compensation", that's the right that is being provided in the amendment. But they never discuss that, they focus only on "public use" - which while can be discussed shouldn't be the only avenue of discussion. And they continually talk as if Kelo's property was taken without compensation. I know prosecutors are supposed to argue their case and ignore everything else, and that's what they did. That was certainly not an academic exercise to present and discuss all information. I certainly won't be subscribing to them.
They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. The case also set the precedent that the government could take private land not just for public use, but to transfer that land to another private party. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner's will for the purpose of enriching a corporation.
If they covered compensation it was so brief (and lopsided) that I missed it. I think over half the point of that phrase of the amendment was about compensation. But all they said was take take take take private take private take. It was overwhelmingly horribly biased for what they wanted. IMHO take isn't even the right word because that implies taking without compensation, which there was. If you consider them balanced for scotus and biased for the rest, holy shit.
It is called the Takings Clause by
And when you read the whole thing, I think most of it is about compensation. And in common parlance in discussion when we use the term "take", well it means take. It doesn't mean take with compensation in common modern parlance. That's what I'm referring to. They discuss as if it's only taking. Really they need to remind and acknowledge at a regular basis that there is compensation. Like I said before, if they mentioned it at all, it was so brief and lopsided that I missed it.
I guess we won't agree, but I feel the need to call out horribly biased "discussion".
It is called the Takings Clause by the Supreme Court, Cornell Law, and pretty much anyone else who talks about it. Expect the word "take" in a discussion about it.
The clause itself uses the word "take". Taking with compensation is still taking.