Imminent Domain

Black's Law Dictionary-states:

The right of eminent domain is the right of the state through its regular organization, to reassert, either temporarily or permanently, its dominion over any portion of the soil of the state on account of public exigency and for the public good. Thus, IN THE TIME OF WAR OR INSURRECTION, the proper authorities may possess and hold any part of the authority of the state for the common safety and in time of peace the LEGISLATURE MAY AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF THE SAME TO PUBLIC PURPOSES SUCH AS THE OPENING OF ROADS,CONSTRUCTION OF DEFENSES, OR PROVIDING CHANNELS FOR TRADE AND TRAVEL.

The controversy appears to center around the interpretation of "public exigency and for the public good"

The USSC agreed on a 5-4 vote, I believe, that states may use Eminent Domain to raise tax revenues after replacement of a smaller property by a larger one.

States appear to be passing legislation to avoid Eminent Domain to be intepreted in that SPECIFIC MANNER.

"public good" is about as vague as you can get. I think that is the issue the supremes were contending with and not the issue of "constitutional" protections. Which is why they tossed it back to the states to resolve. Had the supremes taken an "activist" role in this decision they would probably come to a different decision.

It may indeed be vague but it is the term used by Black's Law Dictionary.

It may be purposefully vague. Nevertheless, the USSC's decision, like Roe and Wade, will be picked apart by a variety of legislative initiatives on the state level.

I wonder if it will get rechallenged after all the new supremes are in place

So then, what's the issue?

The issue is: Will Eminent Domain be redefined by the state legislatures and possibly the Supreme Court which may revisit the concept.

If state legislatures rule that the power of eminant domain may not be used for merely raising tax revenues, then we will be back to square one.

Why back to square one? the supremes have already given notice that it's up to the states to determine eminent domain. Or, are you perhaps, just doing some speculation/prognostication?

I can handle emminent domain as was originaly designed in the constitution. I have serious objections of the use of emminent domain for business gain.

eminent domain was very lucrative for Bush when he needed a baseball stadium. But you know, I would really like to see eminent domain limited severly to what is actually for the good. My argument is that the supremes handled this issue ina the only way they could. It's a state issue, not a federal one.

We shall see

No, "due process" applies to both fed (e.g., Amendment V) and state process (e.g., Amendment XIV). Process in accord with eminent domain is a "due process." An eminent domain process is a "due process" if and only if, it is employed for the purpose of taking private property by a government entity that then uses that property to serve a public purpose.

Whoops! That was true until the recent Supreme Court decision. Now it looks like the Court legislated an additional interpretation of public purpose. Now property can be taken for a private purpose, if that new private purpose will provide the local, state, or federal government additional tax revenue.



Yes and No! As you can see from my previous comment in this post, it all depends on who ultimately has the final say on how to interpret the meaning of public purpose.



I am not saying that. Again, I am saying that eminent domain applies only to the taking of private property for a public purpose. So what constitutes a public purpose. Until this year's Court decision, it constituted a transfer of private ownership of property to public ownership by a government entity. Now, it seems, it also applies to the transfer of private property to another private owner when such transfer will generate more tax revenue for some government entity.

For example, let's talk about one's house and property. The new additional interpretation of public purpose is where one's house and property are taken by a government entity for the purpose of giving it to someone else who will use it in a way that is expected by that government entity to generate more tax revenue for that government entity.

By that interpretation of public purpose, everyone's property is subject to seizure with just comensation (whatever that means now) by any private party, any private party at all, if they can convince some government entity that transfer of that property to themselves will result in more tax revenue for that government entity.

In my opinion they handled this in the worst way they could.

You assume it's only a state issue. Don't overlook the fact that the federal government also practices the due process of eminent domain.

Theoretically, (e.g., assuming no armed rebellion is generated as a result), the feds can now (as a result of the Court's decision) seize an entire community, state or territory and transfer it to some other private party. All they have to do is show they can thereby collect more tax revenue. Believe me, they can easily show that about any currently private property (whether actually true or not) because in such case it would be the feds who ultimately decide. All the feds have to show is that all the revenue the local or state government previously derived from that private property is now transferred to the feds.

Hmmm! That's not creeping socialism; that's leaping socialism! Who or what can now stop them?

This may be a first for a2k ican yourself posting someting that is strictly your opinion. Refreshing a bit. The socialism tag line kinda kills the joy, you know what I mean?

It is my opinion that my previous post was not the first time I posted what was strictly my opinion. But that of course is merely my opinion, that is my opinion.

Yes the government is going to take their houses, and though they will be reimbursed, one's home is one's castle no matter how good or bad it appears to someone else.

We have NEVER been able to own our own home under emminent domain. Now we just have more people who can try and take it