due process and land seizure without compensation

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by jzk

I do believe that is how you see it, but you and Wikipedia left out a key element in the definition of civil disobedience. It is a non-violent means of protesting unjust laws.

And you believe that private property and trespass laws are unjust? People can just break into property and take what they please?

I don't see a mention of violence in the occupation of the house in question, therefore it meets that particular element you raised.

It also does not matter what *I* think of the property & trespass laws, I'm not the perpetrator of the action. It is the opinion of those breaking the law that makes it civil disobedience. Their statements lead me to believe this is the case, but you feel free to prove me wrong on that

Strange that you would spend such effort trying to prove that the action is not civil disobedience. I was not aware that there was some magic conservative rule that made civil disobedience acceptable but other law-breaking not so. If not, why bother - law breaking is still occurring and, just by calling it civil disobedience, I am acknowledging that.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by jzk

I do believe that is how you see it, but you and Wikipedia left out a key element in the definition of civil disobedience. It is a non-violent means of protesting unjust laws.

And you believe that private property and trespass laws are unjust? People can just break into property and take what they please?

I think the "Civil Disobedience" aspect of this in the minds of the OWS protesters was that they were "liberating" the house from the Bank that had foreclosed on the former owner.

Shades of the 60's.

[erps]

The court ruled against the EPA in this case and will allow the Sacketts to bring their complaint to the court.:

The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.

Wednesday's decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed without a permit.

In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court rejected EPA's argument that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest orders like the one issued to the Sacketts would compromise the agency's ability to deal with water pollution.

Court sides with property owners over EPA | www.kirotv.com

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by erps

The court ruled against the EPA in this case and will allow the Sacketts to bring their complaint to the court.:

Court sides with property owners over EPA | www.kirotv.com

Yeah, that pesky access to the courts can really be inconvenient for arrogant and bullying government departments.

[Sailormon6]

Yes, but some think the EPA's objectives justify the most draconian tactics. If you believe environmental protection is a cause that should be pursued with religious fervor, then you can justify crushing all resistance from the little man by imposing a $30,000 fine per day, until you break him for no greater crime than trying to protect his property rights from a government that wants to use his property for environmental purposes without compensating him for using it. If they wanted to build a highway over part of his property, they would have to pay him for using it, but if they want to deprive him of all practical, personal use of his property by declaring it a wetland, they not only don't have to compensate him, but they also want to crush him with fines for having the temerity to take them to court.

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I have no objection to the general EPA mission. I object to their oppressive tactics, and I think they ought to be required to compensate a person when they deprive him of all practical use and value of his property. If the government wants a wetland there, let them buy the property and make it a wetland. I know the courts have permitted it. That makes it legal, but it doesn't make it right.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Yes, but some think the EPA's objectives justify the most draconian tactics. If you believe environmental protection is a cause that should be pursued with religious fervor, then you can justify crushing all resistance from the little man by imposing a $30,000 fine per day, until you break him for no greater crime than trying to protect his property rights from a government that wants to use his property for environmental purposes without compensating him for using it. If they wanted to build a highway over part of his property, they would have to pay him for using it, but if they want to deprive him of all practical, personal use of his property by declaring it a wetland, they not only don't have to compensate him, but they also want to crush him with fines for having the temerity to take them to court.

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I have no objection to the general EPA mission. I object to their oppressive tactics, and I think they ought to be required to compensate a person when they deprive him of all practical use and value of his property. If the government wants a wetland there, let them buy the property and make it a wetland. I know the courts have permitted it. That makes it legal, but it doesn't make it right.

Eminent domain has its place but people affected by it should be properly compensated, not just have their property stolen from them - that is just inexcusable.

[final frame]

Originally Posted by erps:817005

they are a group of citizens though, aren't they?

No organizations and corporations are two different things.

[jrd22]

"The court ruled against the EPA in this case and will allow the Sacketts to bring their complaint to the court.:"

Glad to hear some sanity still exists. Now I hope the EPA will have to pay damages for depriving them of the use of their property. I think I read that the EPA uses these same tactics 3000 times per year. About time they were reigned in.