SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (37118)6/24/2005 1:21:00 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
Actually, what I meant was that the bill of rights originally restricted only what the federal gov't could do, not the state gov'ts. The incorporation clause in the 14th amendment was added to extend protections of citizens' rights under the constitution down to the state level by stating that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But the question I raised was whether the takings clause, the due process clause or anything else is violated by a taking just because a private party benefits from it. Isn't it possible that many legitimate takings (i.e. they serve a legitimate public purpose) also provide some private benefit as well? And isn't it possible that the underlying public purpose might sometimes be more efficiently met with private involvement, which would be impossible without some private benefit?

Now don't get me wrong - I'm sure there are abuses of the privilege of imminent domain. I'm just suggesting that if city and county governments are abusing it, then state legislatures have the power and are probably in the best position to do something about it. Laws need to be crafted that clearly define what is a legitimate public purpose that might justify a taking, how (if at all) private interests might be involved, how "just compensation" is to be determined, etc.

On the federal level, short of the SCOTUS stepping into the mess of defining all that by fiat (and remember, we don't want them legislating from the bench), there's nothing much that can be done. The congress can't legislate away the imminent domain rights of state and local governments or write laws on behalf of the states. So, what would you suggest other than getting state legislatures to handle it?

And what does criticizing the POTUS have to do with it?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News