GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jttmab who wrote (51495)	7/3/2005 3:15:30 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) of 173976

It seems that people are surprised to find out that the government has a right (from way back before Magna Carta) to seize private property for what is loosely described as public good. That right has been narrowed over time to include things like just compensation. Apparently then, this right has been further narrowed by the SC decision. As I understand it, they clarified that seizure is a natural right of the government but that legislatures can limit that right as they see fit. It sure seems like the SC simply stated clearly what has been true for centuries and then told the legislatures that it was up to them to limit that natural right. "...Many colonial laws imposed affirmative obligations on residents to use their property for some specific purpose to advance the overall interests of the community. A Plymouth colony ordinance required those with rights in valuable minerals to exploit their rights or forfeit them. A Maryland law required owners of good mill sites to develop the sites or run the risk of losing their property to someone else who would develop the site. Similarly, when land was not developed or bridges fell into disuse, colonial governments took these properties from their owners and transferred them to someone else. Such forced transfers often occurred when the owner's initial grant contained provisions requiring use, but not always.... The founders were profoundly influenced by republicanism, the school of thought that contends that the essential role of the state is to promote individual virtue and commitment to the common good. Republicans treasured the institution of private property. Property gave the individual the independence he needed to participate responsibly in politics without fear of economic retribution. Because property was valued as a means, rather than as the end of the state, however, republicans believed that legislators could limit property interests in order to advance the common good...." law.georgetown.edu

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next