I am Pro-Ron Paul but don't see what's wrong with the NAU/NAFTA Superhighway?

[torchbearer]

So... I see that some troll has just pwn'd the grassroots forum.

where?

 

[Thomas Paine]

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London did uphold the notion that private property can be taken by government for private use so long as it creates a public benefit. (Personally, I happen to disagree with this decision.) In the Kelo case, the local government was taking private property along the waterfront and transferring such property to private owners who were going to revitalize and develop the property thereby increasing the property tax base. In essence, the legal argument was that the public benefitting by the resulting increase in tax revenues.

However, in this matter concerning the superhighway, it seems to me that the superhighway is going to be available to John Q Public to use (if tolls are paid). Therefore, any private property taken by government for the purpose of creating the superhighway is a valid taking under the Fifth Amendment (if there is "just compensation" to the private property owners). My reasoning for the validity of the taking is that the public will be using the superhighway. If you tell me that the superhighway is in fact going to be closed to the public and can only be used by the shareholders of the company(s) that own the superhighway, then you may have a possible argument against the taking although the decision of Kelo v. New London would still support the taking of such property.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Ever hear of the Cherokee Indians and the Trail of Tears???

Ever heard of McIntosh v. United States

This opinion explains that the Indians did not own the land, they were merely inhabitants, and had not put any work into the land to make it there own, lockean theory.. It is really a messed up opinion..But it is how the United States took the land from the indians.. And in effect created the America that is today..

If you go to law school, this will be the first case you will read in your Property class.

 

[Electrostatic]

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London did uphold the notion that private property can be taken by government for private use so long as it creates a public benefit. (Personally, I happen to disagree with this decision.) In the Kelo case, the local government was taking private property along the waterfront and transferring such property to private owners who were going to revitalize and develop the property thereby increasing the property tax base. In essence, the legal argument was that the public benefitting by the resulting increase in tax revenues.

However, in this matter concerning the superhighway, it seems to me that the superhighway is going to be available to John Q Public to use (if tolls are paid). Therefore, any private property taken by government for the purpose of creating the superhighway is a valid taking under the Fifth Amendment (if there is "just compensation" to the private property owners). My reasoning for the validity of the taking is that the public will be using the superhighway. If you tell me that the superhighway is in fact going to be closed to the public and can only be used by the shareholders of the company(s) that own the superhighway, then you may have a possible argument against the taking although the decision of Kelo v. New London would still support the taking of such property.

A POSSIBLE Argument?????

You chose the wrong nickname, sir.

 

[torchbearer]

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London did uphold the notion that private property can be taken by government for private use so long as it creates a public benefit. (Personally, I happen to disagree with this decision.) In the Kelo case, the local government was taking private property along the waterfront and transferring such property to private owners who were going to revitalize and develop the property thereby increasing the property tax base. In essence, the legal argument was that the public benefitting by the resulting increase in tax revenues.

However, in this matter concerning the superhighway, it seems to me that the superhighway is going to be available to John Q Public to use (if tolls are paid). Therefore, any private property taken by government for the purpose of creating the superhighway is a valid taking under the Fifth Amendment (if there is "just compensation" to the private property owners). My reasoning for the validity of the taking is that the public will be using the superhighway. If you tell me that the superhighway is in fact going to be closed to the public and can only be used by the shareholders of the company(s) that own the superhighway, then you may have a possible argument against the taking although the decision of Kelo v. New London would still support the taking of such property.

Do those cases authorize lethal force? And no more Indian stories... the U.S. consitution doesn't apply to other countries.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

So it's ok to remove people from their property using inflationary fiat money that loses value every day, and then pass the land onto a foreign company?

And isn't this the root of the problem? I don't have many problems with the exercise of imminent domain. It was a power entrusted to the government for a reason. How would we be able to build Air and Naval stations without it? What about National Parks and/or monuments. Yes, even interstates are a good product of imminent domain.

However, I'm sure the framers had an idea on what would keep the land grabbing in check. I think that idea was based on the "just compensation" clause. The federal government wasn't extremely wealthy when the framers wrote the constitution, nor could it print or borrow money at will.

A return to sound money, or even a balanced budget amendment, would keep these expenditures to a minimum. Right now, the federal government's pocket book has no bottom, so everyone's pet project gets funded. If the federal budget were much, much smaller than it is and its balance was enforced, I'll bet that the practice of imminent domain is met with much more scrutiny.

The idea is to limit the supply of money for works projects so that congress must debate over every dime. Then, in theory, only projects with merit and with constitutional standing get funded.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Someone raised the concern whether "it's ok to remove people from their property using inflationary fiat money that loses value every day, and then pass the land onto a foreign company." If the private property owner wants to negotiate "just compensation" to factor in inflation, then there is nothing to prevent the private property owner from doing so. For that matter, there is nothing to stop the private propert owner from getting paid in Euros. Again, that is why it is important for a private property owner who is confronted with the prospect of taking his/her property to get a good eminent domain attorney who will negotiate the best compensation package possible.

 

[Vendico]

a troll is somebody who starts trouble. This thread is an example. It should be locked by now.

 

[Micahyah]

Someone made a youtube video of CNN contradicting itself on this issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uRgpS1Q2dg

 

[Electrostatic]

And isn't this the root of the problem? I don't have many problems with the exercise of imminent domain. It was a power entrusted to the government for a reason. How would we be able to build Air and Naval stations without it? What about National Parks and/or monuments. Yes, even interstates are a good product of imminent domain.

However, I'm sure the framers had an idea on what would keep the land grabbing in check. I think that idea was based on the "just compensation" clause. The federal government wasn't extremely wealthy when the framers wrote the constitution, nor could it print or borrow money at will.

A return to sound money, or even a balanced budget amendment, would keep these expenditures to a minimum. Right now, the federal government's pocket book has no bottom, so everyone's pet project gets funded. If the federal budget were much, much smaller than it is and its balance was enforced, I'll bet that the practice of imminent domain is met with much more scrutiny.

The idea is to limit the supply of money for works projects so that congress must debate over every dime. Then, in theory, only projects worth merit and with constitutional standing get funded.

qft.. Thank you.

 

[torchbearer]

a troll is somebody who starts trouble. This thread is an example. It should be locked by now.

What troll? I was enjoying the debate. No one is cussing and flaming, just exchanging cases and ideas.

 

[Thomas Paine]

In addition, I think someone else raised the concern as to whether government can take a person's life. Actually, the federal government can take a person's life so long as due process is followed. Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty because I am a Christian. However, don't make the false presumption that government cannot take one's private property or one's life because it can...so long as the government acts under constitutional authority.

 

[doronster195]

a troll is somebody who starts trouble. This thread is an example. It should be locked by now.

Please... I am hardly a troll. This is the only issue of Ron Paul's I am unclear on and I wanted it to be cleared up. I, obviously, am not alone on this as my question has caused for 11 pages worth of discussion.

 

[Patronus]

Originally Posted by Patronus
WHOA ! Neither of these 2 started this thread, and they are now fighting it out.
doronster195 actually started this.. a 2 week member. doronster195 not only asked a divisive question to start some attacking each other, s/he also asked for "quality sources" to take MORE of our time. Why would an authentic RP grassroots member raise this question here, instigating division and infighting ? As many have pointed out, it's doronster195's role to research first.

Haha. No, we welcome this - as long as it stays a civil and intellectual debate. This is a complex issue and there are many facts being thrown from numerous sources. We obviously can't believe them all.

If people do want hard studies from the Austrian School of Economics on the public improvements debate and privatizing transportation, check out these two articles from the Mises Institute.

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/internal.pdf
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

 

[ionlyknowy]

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London did uphold the notion that private property can be taken by government for private use so long as it creates a public benefit. (Personally, I happen to disagree with this decision.) In the Kelo case, the local government was taking private property along the waterfront and transferring such property to private owners who were going to revitalize and develop the property thereby increasing the property tax base. In essence, the legal argument was that the public benefitting by the resulting increase in tax revenues.

However, in this matter concerning the superhighway, it seems to me that the superhighway is going to be available to John Q Public to use (if tolls are paid). Therefore, any private property taken by government for the purpose of creating the superhighway is a valid taking under the Fifth Amendment (if there is "just compensation" to the private property owners). My reasoning for the validity of the taking is that the public will be using the superhighway. If you tell me that the superhighway is in fact going to be closed to the public and can only be used by the shareholders of the company(s) that own the superhighway, then you may have a possible argument against the taking although the decision of Kelo v. New London would still support the taking of such property.

Yes the land was taken by eminent domain, and given to private companies to further economic development in the area.

The surrounding area was impoverished and the economic climate was very dismal. In an attempt to revitalize the area, the govt. attempted to purchase all the land, and was almost successful. Only a small number of people held out and this suit was the result.

I really dont think that you can say that this case applies to our situation because the purpose was that the taking was to improve the horrible impoverished area that was this city.

You cannot make the same argument for the entire US. This taking constitutes a trans America land taking... and you cannot tell me that the entire country is impoverished and this highway will fix the situation..

 

[torchbearer]

In addition, I think someone else raised the concern as to whether government can take a person's life. Actually, the federal government can take a person's life so long as due process is followed. Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty because I am a Christian. However, don't make the false presumption that government cannot take one's private property or one's life because it can...so long as the government acts under constitutional authority.

Doesn't that bother you? No wonder the feds think they have right to tax our labor. They own us.

 

[Real_CaGeD]

When the light blue helmets arrest you for flying old glory it will be too late.

Thats why.

 

[Thomas Paine]

I purposefully referenced the Cherokee Indians and the Trail of Tears because it had the same relevance to the eminent domain question as the query whether the government could use lethal force to remove someone from his/her property in response to one of my prior posts discussing eminent domain. Ever hear of sarcasm???

 

[torchbearer]

Either you are a sovereign person or you are not a sovereign person. If there is someone who has authority over you, then you are no longer sovereign. That in itself contradicts the whole idea of rights and privileges. If the government is sovereign over man, then the government has rights and it gives us privileges.

 

[Delain]

This is the only issue of Ron Paul's I am unclear on and I wanted it to be cleared up.

I think Ron Paul gave an excellent answer on the issue during the CNN/Youtube debate when answering the CFR question.

It's an ideology battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXQLUIc1Ak