re: Allow me to introduce to our LEFTies a 100 year old Truth.... The Roosevelt Easement

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why even get an easement on public land? Most easements I am familiar with are primarily for private property.

---

I had posted about it earlier yesterday and called a few people dumb fricks. Decided to read up on it and there was not a lot of info. The wiki page doesn't mention public or private land, but a few articles did.

They very well could be fake news.

---

There are lots of easements on public land. Utility easements. Roadway easements. Etcetera.

An easement for a Wall would arguably be necessary to ensure that the property in question would not later be used for some other purpose.

quote:

---

This is the worst part of political discourse, people hear “facts” that they want to believe and will defend those “facts” even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

---

That describes 90% of this forum.

Before yesterday Juicy and Hank had never even heard of the Roosevelt Reservation. They were screaming at the sky about government taking land from sea to shining sea.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The NEA does not suspend the Constitition.

---

What is unconstitutional about it?

---

Go back and read my posts that precede the one to which you replied. I did not say that the exercise of eminent domain for a Wall under an Emergency Declaration IS unconstitutional. I said in essence that the question has not yet been resolved.

A landowner could make a good faith claim that construction of a border Wall that has NOT been approved by Congress is NOT a valid “public use” for purposes of the 5th Amendment. This would be entirely consistent with prior use of eminent domain for fencing under the Secure Fence Act, precisely because THAT use of the power WAS authorized by Congress.

quote:

---

How about private companies seizing other private land for economic benefit which the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of in the past.

---

Not exactly the facts of that case, but one could certainly argue that this was the end result of the actual facts (with several intervening steps).

With that caveat, yes, the SCOTUS has indeed addressed that issue. I disagree with the ruling, but they HAVE addressed it.

Of course, Congress also promptly prohibited such exercise of eminent domain in any project utilizing any federal funds. Kudos to Senator John Cornyn.

quote:

---

Exactly the facts of that case.

---

As I said, the net effect was essentially the same, but the private entity did not exercise eminent domain. The City did that, took title, then transferred to the private entity.

When you quote Wikipedia for your factual recitations, they will often be over-simplified for the masses.