due process and land seizure without compensation

[erps]

An interesting case to be decided.


"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Case | PLF and the Sacketts take EPA to the Supreme Court - Pacific Legal Foundation

[xymotic]

Yeah, but don't forget that this is the same supreme court that decided that a city can seize property using eminent domain and give it to a developer, the same court that thinks corporations have a right to 'speech' and that speech=money.

[erps]

the same court that thinks corporations have a right to 'speech' and that speech=money.

the constitution limits government, not citizens. The constitution put a limit on the government restricting speech.

The constitution also put limits on the government seizing private property. This case will test whether the government exceeded that limit. I did not agree with the court's findings on eminent domain seizures to be turned over to private citizens, but at least there was due process and compensation.

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by erps

.... but at least there was due process and compensation.

What do you mean "at least??"

That's all that was/is ever required.

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

What do you mean "at least??"

That's all that was/is ever required.

Not quite. The constitution provides for the ability of the government to seize land for public use. No where does the constitution allow private land to be seized and given to another private person or corporation. I understand the reasons for it (higher tax revenue for the city etc.) but that doesn't make it right.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by US27inKS

Not quite. The constitution provides for the ability of the government to seize land for public use. No where does the constitution allow private land to be seized and given to another private person or corporation. I understand the reasons for it (higher tax revenue for the city etc.) but that doesn't make it right.

Perhaps.

But it's a little like saying one can have an abortion but not for purposes of gender selection.

I know why they set it up that way, but in practice it's just a little silly.

The EPA case, on the other hand, appears to be a denial of due process. At least on a practical level.

[erps]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

What do you mean "at least??"

That's all that was/is ever required.

You're right. The due process and compensation requirements were met. I didn't like the idea of the government taking private property from one person and giving it to another.

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by erps

You're right. The due process and compensation requirements were met. I didn't like the idea of the government taking private property from one person and giving it to another.

Right. I see no problem with seizing property to build a highway. Whether you like the highway or not, it would be for public use. I have a real problem with kicking people out of their lake homes so a developer can put up condos.

As for the case being discussed, those folks got the shaft from beginning to end. But when you're the EPA or the IRS, you get to make up your own rules.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by erps

An interesting case to be decided.


"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Case | PLF and the Sacketts take EPA to the Supreme Court - Pacific Legal Foundation

If that was my land and the EPA won, they'd find that a few tons of salt had been spread over it when they came to check their "winnings".

[jzk]

Originally Posted by erps

the constitution limits government, not citizens.

Except for slavery and prohibition, but excellent point. The Constitution is, supposedly, a grant of limited powers to the federal government by the people. And, therein, there are limitations placed on those powers. Interestingly, Hamilton opposed a bill of rights because why do we need various limitations on powers not granted:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"