Immigration Bill

[therealUT]

In the early 1800's as you suggest? 25 years after the american revolution? probably not very many. certainly not enough to enact an imminent domain policy.

Funny, because the earliest case in U.S. courts concerning eminent domain is Calder v. Bull, 1798. That, coupled with the fact that the 5th Amendment addresses the issue of the state taking private property from citizens, as long as they are compensated, and I would have to believe that eminent domain was being used as far back as the early 1800s...

 

[WA_Vol]

Funny, because the earliest case in U.S. courts concerning eminent domain is Calder v. Bull, 1798. That, coupled with the fact that the 5th Amendment addresses the issue of the state taking private property from citizens, as long as they are compensated, and I would have to believe that eminent domain was being used as far back as the early 1800s...

As described here:

http://www.rppi.org/KeloAmicusFinal.pdf

And I quote "The court has declared on many other occasions that takings of private property for private use are prohibited."

The conclusion was "The judgement of the connecticut supreme court should be reversed."

A ruling against imminent domain then in your mind implies it existed during this time frame? If you talking about rulings preventing imminent domain in the early 1800's then I agree with you. Your right they existed. But a ruling in favor of it? This ruling does not, based on what I have read.

 

[therealUT]

As described here:

http://www.rppi.org/KeloAmicusFinal.pdf

And I quote "The court has declared on many other occasions that takings of private property for private use are prohibited."

The conclusion was "The judgement of the connecticut supreme court should be reversed."

A ruling against imminent domain then in your mind implies it existed during this time frame? If you talking about rulings preventing imminent domain in the early 1800's then I agree with you. Your right they existed. But a ruling in favor of it? This ruling does not, based on what I have read.

The Fifth Amendment:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The only new twist to that is now they can take that land and hand it over to private corporations (which I completely disagree with.)

 

[vader]

defending their land from indian attacks, rustlers, animal attacks, etc. Obviously there was a huge need for imminent domain, with the lack of free land.

I think Native Americans would find your perspective interesting.

 

[WA_Vol]

The Fifth Amendment:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The whole arguement your making is very misleading. Your turning a public use clause which allowed for the necesary building of roads, waterways, sewers, etc and making that equivalent to to imminent domain where the state has the right to buy someone's property and sell it to someone else simply because they the state thinks it will have a higher tax value. The idea that your suggesting that the men of the early 1800's would have went along with such a concept is weak at best. This was what the bill of rights sought to prevent, and the bill of rights had been established 25 years earlier.

 

[WA_Vol]

I think Native Americans would find your perspective interesting.

That ranchers fought with indians to own the land?? I think they know better then anyone.

 

[therealUT]

The whole arguement your making is very misleading. Your turning a public use clause which allowed for the necesary building of roads, waterways, sewers, etc and making that equivalent to to imminent domain where the state has the right to buy someone's property and sell it to someone else simply because they the state thinks it will have a higher tax value. The idea that your suggesting that the men of the early 1800's would have went along with such a concept is weak at best. This was what the bill of rights sought to prevent, and the bill of rights had been established 25 years earlier.

First, the Bill of Rights was not established in 1776, that was the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was not ratified and taken into effect until 1789.

Next, eminent domain does not solely pertain to the state taking private property and then then giving it to another private party. Eminent domain originally pertained to the state taking private property and making public use of it, the largest eminent domain cases in our history being the fights over the Eisenhower Interstate System.

That being the case, I can easily agree that eminent domain is mostly a good thing, except that it has now been perverted by the courts so that states can now take private property and sell it to other private parties. However, that is not a federal problem, it is a local problem. In other words, laws have been passed in state legislatures and city councils allowing this to happen, therefore, citizens should do research on candidates that involves more than just how they feel about abortion, gay marriage, and war.

 

[therealUT]

I think Native Americans would find your perspective interesting.

I couldn&#39;t agree more, and in the words of Davy Crockett (concerning the vanquishment of the Cherokee Nation,) "Y&#39;all can go to hell, I&#39;m going to Texas&#33;" <--uttered in Congress

 

[vader]

I couldn&#39;t agree more, and in the words of Davy Crockett (concerning the vanquishment of the Cherokee Nation,) "Y&#39;all can go to hell, I&#39;m going to Texas&#33;" <--uttered in Congress

:lolabove: That is what I started telling people when I decided to move to TX last fall.

 

[rwemyss]

Don&#39;t miss the wording of the Fifth Amendment. "JUST compensation".

Who decides what "just compensation" is right now? The government. That should be changed. If an independent appraisal says "this property is worth 100 bucks" but the government comes back and says "this property is only worth 25 bucks&#33;" Guess how much they&#39;ll give you for that property. It isn&#39;t 100 bucks.

 

[volinasheville]

Just compensation can be determined in many ways and there are appeals processes that could include litigation. I used to handle these valuation cases from time to time when I did litigation consulting.

 

[WA_Vol]

Just compensation can be determined in many ways and there are appeals processes that could include litigation. I used to handle these valuation cases from time to time when I did litigation consulting.

the truth is many people dont have the resources or knowledge to seek appeals and get screwed. everything has a price they are just not willing to pay it, so they use the court to get it for the price they want. look what happened in the everglades this year. corp of engineers decided they needed some land for a projec, so a person loses his farm, at their price.

 

[Crakaveli]

Mexicans have no love for what the U.S. currently is. They think this is their land and they want it back. If Mexico&#39;s gov&#39;t was not as crappy as it is, this issue would not be as big as it is. But since it is, the mexicans are leaving and coming here claiming they have a right to be here. I dont think Reagan would give amnesty to 12 million ppl.

 

[therealUT]

the truth is many people dont have the resources or knowledge to seek appeals and get screwed. everything has a price they are just not willing to pay it, so they use the court to get it for the price they want. look what happened in the everglades this year. corp of engineers decided they needed some land for a projec, so a person loses his farm, at their price.

It is not my fault nor the fault of the governor that people decide not to do the research to get the most value out of their property when it is being claimed by the government.

 

[therealUT]

Mexicans have no love for what the U.S. currently is. They think this is their land and they want it back. If Mexico&#39;s gov&#39;t was not as crappy as it is, this issue would not be as big as it is. But since it is, the mexicans are leaving and coming here claiming they have a right to be here. I dont think Reagan would give amnesty to 12 million ppl.

As long as American workers refuse to work for the wages that the foreign worker will, then U.S. corporations will always attract foreign workers, or leave America all together.

 

[rwemyss]

It is not my fault nor the fault of the governor that people decide not to do the research to get the most value out of their property when it is being claimed by the government.

It is actually the government&#39;s job to appraise the property at the correct value in the first place. I agree, not everyone can pay a lawyer to get the correct value from their property...

 

[therealUT]

It is actually the government&#39;s job to appraise the property at the correct value in the first place. I agree, not everyone can pay a lawyer to get the correct value from their property...

There are a lot of lawyers who take cases, especially suits, against the government &#39;pro bono.&#39;

 

[U-T]

As long as American workers refuse to work for the wages that the foreign worker will, then U.S. corporations will always attract foreign workers, or leave America all together.

Sadly, correct

 

[rwemyss]

Sadly, correct

I actually missed that... but he IS right. Lots of jobs are already being "outsourced" overseas.

 

[jdsa]

As long as American workers refuse to work for the wages that the foreign worker will, then U.S. corporations will always attract foreign workers, or leave America all together.

We&#39;ve only got 4% unemployment right now. Why would americans take labor intensive, low paying positions when better jobs are available -- not the same as refusal?

 

[WA_Vol]

Have you read Neal Boortz&#39;s book "The Fair Tax." Great literature and national consumption tax plan.

I&#39;m in favor of this tax plan.

 

[smokedog#3]

bill stalled in senate, looks like everybody in general can&#39;t agree on this one.

 

[therealUT]

It stalled because the democrats can&#39;t support any tax plan that does not unfairly burden the rich, no matter how much it takes the burden off of the lower and middle class of America.

 

[rwemyss]

It stalled because the democrats can&#39;t support any tax plan that does not unfairly burden the rich, no matter how much it takes the burden off of the lower and middle class of America.

Sadly true. And I thought we disagreed on things.

 

[OWB]