Should the govenments power of eminent domain be constitutionaly limited?
IF so, Should this amendment be passed?

I don't understand why an amendment is necessary here. A simple action of the legislature should be able to prevent takings of public land for private use. Frankly, I'd prefer that action be at the state level, but given that the great state of North Carolina has chosen not to address the matter, I'd be willing to settle for a Federal mandate.

Maybe I am nieve. Maybe I just have not researched this topic enough. I believe that ownership of land (private or public) is just that. Ownership

No- there is a provision in the constitution for eminent domain- it is just limited that the goverment has to pay for it.

I said when the last ruling on eminent domain that it would be a good thing- that it did not limit local goverments to put more restrictions on eminent domain.

That way each community can decide what is the best limitation beyond the several rulings on eminent domain throughout our nations history.

Our own city is deciding it now, and the state legislature is debating it as well.

For instance- one senator wants to pretty much forbid eminent domain by law except in the case of public works projects. Strict public infrastructure definition of legal eminent domain.

One senator wants to exclude the oil companies from the new definition by law because the oil companies are just sitting on leases and not developing them just for bargaining position with the state- and wants to make it legal to take back those leases for the public good so another oil company could develope it.

I support the exemption because the oil companies are clearly stonewalling in developing the natural gas for various and complex reasons- pretty well researched by the common man up here- so many poeple work in the oil patch and our own governer seems to be kowtowing to the oil companies- but it is a complex controversy way off topic- - however- that being said- I can see where the pendulum swinging too far the other way can be harmful to an entire community. I can imagine some abuses- such as the oil companies up here LOL

I will add links to this post after I search ADN dot com for the relavent articles, if you wish to hear the debate going on about eminent domain.

Okay- if you go to www.adn.com there is alot of info if you do a search on "natural gas" and go from latest to about 6 months ago, and the "magnificent seven" -

here is the law dealing with eminent domain and the oil companies:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7336362p-7248429c.html

The "magnificent seven" controversy- dealing with natural gas and resignations and all kinds of neat stuff- that led up to the bill entered by Croft dealing with eminent domain:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7336362p-7248429c.html

Lot's of room for abuses on both sides- wouldn't you agree?

CR...I submit that this is the only definition that makes sense. Otherwise, there really is no limit whatsoever, as any project that could be shown likely to bring in more taxes than whatever is currently on the land would qualify as public use. This could happen for any property I could envision, essentially rendering the concept of private property ownership moot. I don't think anyone here would argue that that's a good thing.

Isn't the original supreme court ruling dealing with eminent domain legal for a goverment to seize property at "fair market value" dealing with a mine wanting to move ore over, as in a line in the air- over a private landholder?

The pipeline up here is in private ownership by a consortium of oil companies in the form of Aleyeska Pipeline co.- and eminent domain was used quite a bit to put in the pipeline- by a private company deal. The road was the only thing paid for by the goverment- and is why we can use the Dalton hiway today.

So should we have not built the pipeline- it was purely for commercial use- by an oil company to make profit. Period. We got tax revenue for it- just like new london in conn wished- it is not much of a jump to see seizing land for an oil company vs a department store- is it?

I also see a trend of counties to seize land for Wal-mart- because of the revenue it would create.

So- I think a very careful definitions that still allow large scale public works like pipelines and developement of resources, though still for profit, and the business it creates- just like in New London goverment situaiton- were they have a really, really run down nieghborhood, and some hold outs make it impossible for that community to make that area better- and increase revenues.

It really is quite a bit more complex than the usual knee jerk and black and white definitions like " owner ship is just that- ownership, goverment be darned" or some such.

I agree with this, and do support judicious use of eminent domain. I would think the pipeline example would quite easily fall within the guidelines of prudent public use...after all, everyone uses oil. If profit alone is the motive, then it should be quite possible to simply purchase the land, without any government intervention. If some landowner wants too much for it, either bypass him, wait him out, or start a public relations campaign that paints him in a very unfavorable lite, making him want to sell. There are almost always solutions for private use of land that shouldn't require the application of eminent domain.

All this aside, my initial contention still stands. What is needed is a more explicit definition of what does constitute public use.

We do have a Constitutional limit on eminent domain, its simply that the Supreme Court has decided that 200+ years of precedent is irrelevant. In short, they've amended the Constitution.

As for the pipeline in question, an argument could have been made (and probably was), that the pipeline was essentially a utility easement, and as such does legitimately fall into the realm of public use, as understood since 1789...

Why would you say that? The latest decision on eminient domain IS based on "200+ years" of precedent- that is why they came to the decision they did- any time you improve a community through revenue enhancement- you have done "the public good"- the old debate on eminent domain :http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10302&hl=

Remember curmudgeons comment about how eminent domain allowed buick to seize thier old home- circa 1930?

http://www.nyclu.org/eminent_domain_lj_article_060105.html

Above is a pretty good history of "precedent" allowing the very thing you are talking about for over 100 years!

the very emininent domain laws we are contemplating in Alaska today would prohibit the building of the pipeline today.

In fact- the oil companies, namely Exxon, is refusing to develope the leases sold to them- and yesterday the legilslature heard testimoney for a 1billion a year tax on undeveloped leases. Legal use of eminient domain as it stands would allow the state to take back these leases and sell them to somebody that will fulfil the spirit of the sale.

Eminent domain IS neccesary- even the founding fathers with all our land and very few poeple back in the 1700s understood that land would need to be siezed "for the public domain" and thier main check was "compensated" for the land.

Well, along comes wal-mart and starts seizing land for super stores- and here we are again LOL -

but you must craft the language to protect landowners VERY CAREFULLY or you will have no ability to better your community- when you have folks that don't wish to leave for this project or that.

Should the govenments power of eminent domain be constitutionaly limited?
IF so, Should this amendment be passed?

Eminent domain seems to have morphed from a necessary method used to build or maintain the infrastructure of a city to a sneaky way to grab land for any purpose and do it legally. And since most of our Constitutional amendments are tortuously interpreted to mean whatever the analyst wants them to mean, I don’t know how that would help. Something definitely needs to be done, but I don’t know at what level.

The latest eminent domain outrage is occurring right now in New Orleans. I saw some video clips of the meeting last night on the news, and it was ugly.



Essentially, the city is tossing the burden of justifying rebuilding in certain (read: poor) areas of New Orleans onto the residents of that area. To me, that’s a cheap shot and hurts everyone; the ones who have insurance and are ready to rebuild, the ones too poor to rebuild, the ones relocated to all over hell and gone, and the ones who wouldn’t know where to begin drawing up a “recovery plan” (besides, isn’t that what our elected officials get paid to do???? ).

Whatta load of .....

I'm rather firmly of the opinion that eminent domain needs to be limited-- Constitutionally or otherwise-- because the Court's current definition of "public use" does not appear to set any limits upon the practice whatsoever, and it takes a considerable stretch of logic to even see how it applies to the plain English meaning of the words.

However, I do not think that it should be limited strictly to transportation; that would rule out potential future "public use" projects that may prove necessary. I do think that it should be limited by setting a firmer definition of "public use"-- for property to be seized via eminent domain, the government must demonstrate clear public benefit and the property must be sold to and retained by the government.

For one thing, our rail system would be considerably more useful if it were actually government-provided, instead of being a barely-subsidized private industry; if the rails weren't owned by the freight lines, passenger rail might actually be a practical means of transportation.

Eminent domain, as well as many privacy issues, does rise to the equivalent importance of those within the Bill of Rights. These are limitations upon government. Eminent domain should be a limitation placed upon government at all levels.

Privacy issues are not clearly spelled out in the constitution. The Supreme Court has some rulings which go through rather tortuous logic to derive some constitutional limitations. This process has been labeled 'legislating from the bench' but it would be better labeled as amending through the bench. The Supreme Court would be better off if it made a bold pronouncement along the lines that such rights are implied by the constitution but enforcement of such limitations upon government would be best addressed by an amendment process. I would think it is completely appropriate for the Supreme Court the advise congress to form a Constitutional Convention to address these constitutional privacy issues.