4th Amendment, forbids this. But that does not stop out of control politicians for inventing laws to meet thier personal financial goals. Look what happened in the Black Hills, Even after the Federal government was found guilty of stealing the Black Hills, they still have not returned it or paid for it.

I respect your opinion, but what about when they bury it, and when it leaks? If you have a well, that could well be permanently spoiled, and this company has a really bad record. I prefer to side with the notion you should have the right to own and use your property, and not have people go under over or whatever. But, it really isn't the point, since the discussion has pretty much established they have as much chance as drying a rat in a microwave.

Well, there was a subjective argument, but if they did not hold title to the land, then it was just typical govt rudeness.

Just another legal cesspool of convenience and power that absolutely ignores the rights of the individual. This is what Trump is tapping into, the anger and frustration of a system tht is built to feed itself. He is a good alarm bell, but I really wouldn't think he would be able to handle it, although at this point, I would like Ben Carson as the brains and Trump as the conscience, as he is the only one wanting to scream and shout enough to get attention.

Since a buried pipeline wouldn't interfere with the existing land use, I would vote to allow the taking by eminent domain. Blocking other people's activity for what amounts to spite is not a legitimate use of a property right, in my opinion.

No one is arguing for a morality of these laws as proper. We are discussing what they are. The pipeline controversy is not a result of Kelo.

The original condemnations were constitutional but clearly immoral. The eminent domain foothold has been progressively expanded with ever broadening criteria for what they can take by arbitrarily expanding the meaning of "public use". There was a big debate about this after the Kelo decision. That is what happens with a contradiction embedded in a constitution.

The basis of regulatory takings is the 'police powers' of government to regulate, conveniently imposed to bypass the constitutional requirement to pay for what they take without admitting they are taking it (you get to keep the deed and the tax bill). There have been attempts for years in Congress and state legislatures to require compensation for regulatory takings as de facto eminent domain beyond certain limits of regulatory burden, but the statists have resisted it. There have been only a few Supreme Court cases (thanks mostly to our friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation) reining in certain kinds of regulatory takings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central...

"Before the construction of the park could start, the area had to be cleared of its inhabitants. Rossi states that part of the impetus to schemes such as Central Park and others was to remove shanty towns and their denizens, who consisted of free African Americans and English/Irish residents, most of whom were poor, but some of whom were middle-class. Most lived in small villages, such as Harsenville, the Piggery District, or Seneca Village; or in the school and convent at Mount St. Vincent's Academy. Approximately 1,600 residents were evicted under the rule of eminent domain during 1857. Seneca Village and parts of the other communities were razed to make room for the park."

Then later the corruption of Robert Moses: The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York http://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Ro...

Then what would be the legal justification for a Regulatory Taking, if not based on th eminent domain legal framework? It seems it all comes back to the govt believing it has the right to take whatever it wants for whatever needs it perceives. The payment of eminent domain is never seemingly based on market value, if I have a Lamborghini for 100K, but the EPA says it pollutes too much so I cannot drive it, is that not the same? In that case I get no compensation for the lost value. In the land thing, it is left up to a judge who may or may not be honest, and who may or may not be paid by the company. I trust no one in judicial or political garb.

I am stating that I think there is a difference between morally right and legally right. Just because we have been twisted by our political system does not justify the act. Legally they may have the suthority, morally no. Same for the enviromental and DNR stuff, while there may be some good value in protecting animals and an ecosystem, from various individuals chipping away at it with out knowing how all of it fits together, the draconian legal response has been to just strip private property rights in favor of environmental. An unbalanced approach. In both cases they have the legal right.

The ideology of nature worship and collectivism is not "window dressing". It drives the anti-private property agenda.

Regulatory takings are not an aspect of eminent domain. Eminent domain specifically requires paying for what they take; regulatory takings take control leaving you with the paper deed and the tax bill. Both are implementations of the anti-private property rights philosophies.

But there may have been some subjective argument for Central Park, in that it was there to provide for anyone who could get to it, a specific benefit. When they sell it to some corporation, or sell advertising, then it would slide down the slope further.

Yes, but that is just another aspect of "eminent domain". While the legal system has been bought, manipulated and skewed to favor those with the juice, it has now become the bulwark against which all of these land grabs occur. I do agree that the whole EPA/resource/"wild-lands" thing has gotten to far off the road, it still all comes as window dressing over taking what is not theirs for their own, or others who have bought the privileged, use. This whole discussion revolves around :Does the government have the right to take your land for their own purposes? I say no, but the legal system has morphed to yes.

Why should anyone not be right in correctly identifying the state of the law and its historical progression?

The story is about his "beliefs". He made it that way as an ideological viro activist looking for publicity.

He will most likely loose his legal adventure, but he isn't toast. The pipeline would be buried invisibly under his land, not affecting anything he wants to do or not do on it, only gnawing at his religious obsession, which he caused himself. He doesn't care about private property rights or eminent domain as a matter of principle. But the rest of civilization is "toast" if this viro movement is allowed to continue politically with the attack on private property rights and human civilization itself becomes progressively worse.

It's not a matter of deliberately denying them their own property rights, government has already done that, but rather explaining what they are doing and why they deserve no personal sympathy or help.

The formation of Central Park

Mars isn't far enough away. The government is already there to prevent your use of it.

Eminent domain for parks and refuges has been used extensively to private property, especially by the National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife. EPA imposes regulatory prohibitions on land use without paying for it -- they are "regulatory takings", not eminent domain. Likewise for the Endangered Species Act under US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilderness is imposed on Federal lands already under control of the Federal government, preventing natural resource extraction on land that was supposed to be settled and used, not kept under government control forever, let alone locked up.

Allow me to add fuel to the fire. If we truly "own" property, then the government should have no right whatsoever to take money from us for owning the land. Our property is not ours unless this injustice is done away with.

jbrenner, I agree with your point, he's right, but should not be. That is something we have lost in this country, and no one noticed. I hope after this mess collapses, they can build one that actually sticks to it's founding principles.

We will have to disagree here. I cannot allow an individuals beliefs color the basic issue, which to me is individual property rights. I do agree that they are toast, based on all the past decisions we have no private property rights. I think that is contrary to the founding principles of the country. But that is just me...

Great idea. I bet Ben Carson would even be ok with it.

I did look up some of the legalese for eminent domain, and the long ugly trail of rulings show that this has been gong on for a long time, with the definition getting broader and broader with every goofy decision. I do not agree with their rulings, as it all says absolute power to the state and none to the individual. But then our supposedly "non political" Supreme Joke has made corporations equal to individuals for donations purposes, irregardless of the fact the money base is totally uneven. So, it may be that we lost all our private property rights and just were never told. Basically you have the right to have your property, as long as no one else wants it. The Gulch will need to relocate to Mars.