Mississippi Militia standoff(lasting 1997-1999)

[White Horseradish]

LawDog, I think we should also ask whether a golf course is "public use". I am a member of the public, but it is totally useless to me since I don't play golf and view golf courses as waste of perfectly good rifle ranges. I feel the same way about building of stadiums with public money. Now, if this was to expand the airport, or to build a road, I wouldn't object.

 

[LawDog]

Just to argue semantics, the house was valued at $50,100, the value of the home can only be set by the people who live in it.

Semantics are fine, but it doesn't do any good to argue them with me, argue them with the jury of Bill Cockrells' peers (12 good men and true) who set the 'just compensation' of the house at $66,000 during the eminent domain proceedings.

LawDog

 

[Attala_County]

ok,it depends on how you interpret just compensation.You do bring up a valid point.Thanks.i need to brush up on that part of the 5th amendment.Check the federalist and anti-federalist papers.I've found that to be more reliable than "precident."But i guess that depends on whether the constitution or court decisions are precident.

Ahhhhh.....im speculating.Better make sure.

 

[NineseveN]

Just to argue semantics, the house was valued at $50,100, the value of the home can only be set by the people who live in it.

"Just compensation" is kind of a tricky area. If you don't want to move then no dollar value is just. I'm sure you have at least one item (gun given to you by your father, varsity letter jacket, something) that you wouldn't sell for "market value" or maybe any price.

And then of course there's that. The seller needs to set the price in a free economy, if you fix the price, you've bypassed capitalism and turned this into a fascist thing. It should come down to negotiating between how much the seller feels it is worth and how badly the government wants it. If they cannot reach an agreement, the gov should do what the rest of us do, find a new deal or make a new plan.

 

[LawDog]

Amendment V

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 offence 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.

I'm pretty sure that when the Constitution says that the Government can do it, as long as the Government pays "just compensation", then that's about as much precedent as is required.

Now, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are valuable reading, but until they are incoporated into the US Constitution by way of Amendment, they are just opinions, they are not law of the land.

The law of land says, quite clearly, that private property may be taken for public use as long as just compensation is paid.

If you, or your buddies, don't like that fact, then the procedures to be followed to Amend the Constitution of the United States and remove the government's eminent domain ability from the Constitution are quite clear and quite easy to find.

As always, my $0.02 worth.

LawDog

 

[lucky_fool]

Semantics are fine, but it doesn't do any good to argue them with me, argue them with the jury of Bill Cockrells' peers (12 good men and true) who set the 'just compensation' of the house at $66,000 during the eminent domain proceedings.

LawDog

Hey, if we as people unrelated to the case can't argue about it with other people unrelated to case what is this internet thingy for, anyway?

 

[Attala_County]

i tend to agree with nineseven.Morally,that just seems right even if the constitution contradicts this(not saying that it does)

 

[Attala_County]

bang!!! bang!!! Get off me property!!!(LOL)

 

[NineseveN]

I'm pretty sure that when the Constitution says that the Government can do it, as long as the Government pays "just compensation", then that's about as much precedent as is required.

Now, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are valuable reading, but until they are incoporated into the US Constitution by way of Amendment, they are just opinions, they are not law of the land.

The law of land says, quite clearly, that private property may be taken for public use as long as just compensation is paid.

If you, or your buddies, don't like that fact, then the procedures to be followed to Amend the Constitution of the United States and remove the government's eminent domain ability from the Constitution are quite clear and quite easy to find.

As always, my $0.02 worth.

LawDog

I completely understand your point Lawdog, what I would argue with is "just compensation", as in, just exactly what it is. Who defines what is just? Does "just compensation" factor in sentimental value, how the owner values the property or the actual value to the government (i.e. is it for a billion dollar Airport annex or simply an expansion of an existing highway that will not generate the tax revenue that the airport expansion would)? Does the perceived value to the comunity get factored in to this "just compensation"? I don't believe so, but I could be wrong.

If jury decides on the compensation amount, what guidelines do they have in reaching the sum of "just compensation"?

The problem is, I cannot really argue my point in this specific case unless I have an assessement that is not 10 years old and knowledge of the condition of the property. But on a general note, I think my point is valid.

 

[Sinsaba]

Also, I've seen it brought up but never seen anyone answer... how is a golf course "public use"?

Yes I know what the SCOTUS has said. That doesn't make it right.

Isn't that what this is really all about? RIGHT vs WRONG? Please tell me again how it is right (not legal) for the city to take my property to build a GOLF COURSE?

 

[Tomcat1066]

Isn't that what this is really all about? RIGHT vs WRONG? Please tell me again how it is right (not legal) for the city to take my property to build a GOLF COURSE?

As far as I'm concerned, it's not. I've had a problem with emminant domain ever since I heard about it in elementary school.

Tom

 

[Attala_County]

I can't find anything within me that can say that is right.I sounds alot like building yacht clubs to me(LOL)Like in Florida.

 

[brufener]

Does "just compensation" factor in sentimental value, how the owner values the property or the actual value to the government (i.e. is it for a billion dollar Airport annex or simply an expansion of an existing highway that will not generate the tax revenue that the airport expansion would)? Does the perceived value to the comunity get factored in to this "just compensation"? I don't believe so, but I could be wrong.

I am in agreement that just compensation does not factor in sentimental value. From reading this thread, it seems that many wish it did.

One important thing to remember is that the government foots the bill - at the expense of taxpayers. Next time the road needs to be widened to relieve congestion, do you want to pay everyone 10 or 20 times the market value of their home to compensate them for their "sentimental value?" Perhaps you will advocate putting a limit on sentimental value - who are you to say that my home does not have a "sentimental value" of 100 times its market value? There is no way (that I can see) to impose any limitation on sentimental value - unless it is an absolute limitation, or no limitation.

Another point - a court is supposed to be a neutral third party. Are people here advocating that the courts were not neutral in the Mississippi case? Many here have stated that they don't believe the use in question was truly a public purpose. Who then, should define "public purpose?" Why is your definition any better than mine, or the courts?

Eminent domain is a valueable tool. Without it, all of us would be forced to pay higher taxes (due to holdouts), or deal with less services (i.e. roads, airports, etc). If you don't like the recent holding (Kelo v. City of New London), then attack it at the state level. All the Kelo case does is say that taking land and selling it to private parties is ok under the federal constitution. States can impose stricter guidelines on themselves through their own laws and/or constitutions.

Bryce

 

[brufener]

Yes I know what the SCOTUS has said. That doesn't make it right.

Isn't that what this is really all about? RIGHT vs WRONG? Please tell me again how it is right (not legal) for the city to take my property to build a GOLF COURSE?

You've hit on a valueable point. There is no universal absolute "Right" or "wrong" in this world. Only God can declare what is universally right or wrong, and as far as I know, He has not made any statements about public use and eminent domain.

If the SCOTUS is not right, what makes your view right? How is your view more "right" than the court's view? How is your view more "right" than my view?

What it comes down to, is that the SCOTUS interprets laws that are passed by our elected representatives, and the Constitution. If you don't like what they do, then get the law changed. If you feel the courts are corrupt, then maybe it is time for a revolution.

In my view, the courts are not corrupt (yet). They just have a different view of government, and "public use" than you do.

Bryce

 

[Attala_County]

Seems to me that what the government should cut down on is al these sentimental civil suits of homosexuals getting their feelings hurt because somebody called them a fag.

If we could legislate against these frivilous lawsuits and stop sending foreign aid and jobs to China and countries like that, then maybe we would have enough money to give people just compensation for thier homes.

 

[Sinsaba]

... Next time the road needs to be widened to relieve congestion, do you want to pay everyone 10 or 20 times the market value of their home to compensate them for their "sentimental value?" ...

... Many here have stated that they don't believe the use in question was truly a public purpose. Who then, should define "public purpose?" Why is your definition any better than mine, or the courts? ...

Eminent domain is a valueable tool. Without it, all of us would be forced to pay higher taxes (due to holdouts), or deal with less services (i.e. roads, airports, etc). ...

I'm confused, in the first part you talk about public use stuff (roads) then you mention that some feel that a golf course isn't "public use", and then switch back to things that are obviously public use ("roads, airports, etc.") and go on to mention that SCOTUS says it is ok to take it for non public use.

It still doesn't make it right. Just because the states can impose their own restrictions doesn't mean a) they will (don't seem to so far) or b) the decision is right

Still you argue LEGAL instead of address RIGHT vs WRONG (while comparing apples and grapefruit)

There have been other instances in history that have clearly been judged that someone should have stood up aginst something because it was WRONG not because it was unlawful.

 

[Sinsaba]

... If the SCOTUS is not right, what makes your view right? How is your view more "right" than the court's view? How is your view more "right" than my view? ...

I'm sorry, do you actually believe that it is right for the government to take a person's land to make a golf course?

If you do, then there isn't much to talk about.

 

[auschip]

Seems to me that what the government should cut down on is al these sentimental civil suits of homosexuals getting their feelings hurt because somebody called them a fag.

If we could legislate against these frivilous lawsuits and stop sending foreign aid and jobs to China and countries like that, then maybe we would have enough money to give people just compensation for thier homes.

[sarcasm]And we wonder why militia members get a bad name![/sarcasm]

 

[brufener]

I'm confused, in the first part you talk about public use stuff (roads) then you mention that some feel that a golf course isn't "public use", and then switch back to things that are obviously public use ("roads, airports, etc.") and go on to mention that SCOTUS says it is ok to take it for non public use.

I was just trying to show that there is a difference in opinions on what a "public use" is. The SCOTUS did not say that you could take land for a non-public use (I may not have made this clear), they said that the taking land for private devolpment/use can be a "public use" (this was the holding in Kelo. Look at Poletown v. City of Detroit for further discussion on what is "public use").

It still doesn't make it right. Just because the states can impose their own restrictions doesn't mean a) they will (don't seem to so far) or b) the decision is right

Still you argue LEGAL instead of address RIGHT vs WRONG (while comparing apples and grapefruit)

Of course legal and moral right/wrong are different. What courts say is LEGAL. Courts do not say what is RIGHT and WRONG. Courts interpret the law/constitution and apply it to the case at hand. Only God says what is universally right and wrong. Any other definition of right and wrong is individualistic (nothing wrong with this, just have to recognize that criticizing a court for making a "wrong" decision doesn't mean anything except that your morals are different than the majority - as expressed in the law).

If we don't agree with what the courts say is legal (assume that courts interpret the law correctly), then what we are really saying is that the law does not agree with our definition of right and wrong. If that is the case, then it is time to change the law. I believe the most effective way of doing this is by our elected representatives.

There have been other instances in history that have clearly been judged that someone should have stood up aginst something because it was WRONG not because it was unlawful.

I certainly agree. If we all agreed on what was right and wrong, and did something about it, then the laws would change to fit our view of right and wrong. However, not all of us agree on what is right and wrong. Is it right (moral) to have one person impose their view of "right" on the majority by armed standoff? Do we believe that citizens should be free of any and all government intrusion (i.e. majority forcing its will on the minority)?

Bryce

 

[brufener]

I'm sorry, do you actually believe that it is right for the government to take a person's land to make a golf course?

If you do, then there isn't much to talk about.

I personally do not agree that my tax dollars should be spent in taking someone's land to make a golf course. I don't like golf at all. However, if I remember right, the reason for taking the land was not to make a golf course - it was to provide a noise buffer zone to the airport. The golf course was just a way to put the land to good use.

However, if the majority of voters (through their elected representatives)agree that the government should pay to take someone's land to make a golf course, then I think the government should impose the will of the majority on the minority (barring some fundamental right violation - none here).

A democratic government is just that - the majority imposing their will on the minority (granted our government is not a true democracy, but its pretty close). A government that makes no imposition on its people at all is not a government, it is anarchy. In order to gain freedoms, you have to give some up.

Your view of public use seems to be limited to essential services such as roads, utilities, etc. Perhaps you feel that there should be an absolute right to property unless it is needed for an essential (as I call it) public use. The US Constitution affords no such right (according to the Kelo decision by the US SC). If you have no LEGAL reason for why the Constitution affords such a right, but feel that there is a MORAL reason for having such a right, you need to change your state laws, Constitution, or the US Constitution.

I did like the idea of having everyone oppose eminent domain in the courts - thus making it much more expensive for cities/developers, giving them a disincentive to use eminent domain. I feel the same way about fighting every speeding ticket so that it will be too expensive for the government to use traffic laws as a revenue raising tool.

Bryce

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Legal and illegal, right and wrong: four different things

Emminent Domain is justified only if absolutely necessary for
a public use, and then the victim should be compensated for
top dollar for their property plus 50% as compensation for
their forced sacrifice.

What we have now is SCOTUS recognition of what has been
happening all along: that a scheming developer can convince
a local government to take folks' property, let him have it and
he'll pay more in taxes than the original owners. The possibilities
for injustice, graft and corruption are endless.

Maybe if a developer's plan doesn't materialize and a city
is stuck with a vacant block and a neighborhood of homeless
families, the people will wake up.

 

[NineseveN]

All this talk about right and wrong and legal...

See, I believe in the Constitution, I believe what it says is right and legal, but that document is not followed to the letter like it should be unless it benefits those in power.


The Second Amendment is discarded, the SCOTUS won't even hear a case on it at this point. This is bad for free citizens. Now, do I think it is "right" that convicted felons released from prison, or child molesters are free to own a firearm under the 2A? Not personally, but it's legal...well, sort of.

See that's not really how this country works, your 2A rights can be stripped away from you for a variety of reasons; including, of all things, cursing at your wife/GF/SO in some places. We don't have free access to modern military small arms, our 2A rights require we ask permission from the FedGov to exercise them...doesn't sound much like a right. The FedGov uses the Constitution as a basis for the actions it takes only if it suits them...when it comes to something that benefits the free citizen, they turn a blind eye to things such as shall not be infringed and make up all kinds of laws in direct opposition to the Amendment that they cannot abuse to broker or leverage more power for themselves.

Now, Amendment V says private property can be taken for just compensation. But the purchaser defines the guidelines of just compensation, this makes it a buyer's market and thus, how just can it truly be? They decide what they want to pay or what factors should be considered into the price they pay, and that isn't right. But the Constitution says it is, just like it says we should all have access to M14's, M4's, M16's, Sig 550's, full-auto machine guns, .50 rifles with no background checks or mechanisms to permanently forfeit or be stripped of our rights. We should be able to carry a firearm from state to state, concealed or otherwise, and not have to be licensed, pay a fee or submit to a background check. Sound suppressors should be hanging in the display cases at Wal-Mart for $200.00 and not require a tax, a long wait and "permission" from the Gov to own.

The thing is, when it's good for us, the citizen, the government could care less...when it helps them, they jump on the Constitution bandwagon...and that does not bode well for our freedoms, our rights, or the future.

 

[Sinsaba]

... If we don't agree with what the courts say is legal (assume that courts interpret the law correctly), then what we are really saying is that the law does not agree with our definition of right and wrong. If that is the case, then it is time to change the law. I believe the most effective way of doing this is by our elected representatives.

That is part of what I dispute here... "assume that courts interpret the law correctly"... I do not make that assumption in this case. In fact I state just the opposite ... this was a bad decision by the supreme court

My elected representatives assure me (I'm not sure I believe them) that not only do they agree with me but they are trying to enact legislation to change this.

... Is it right (moral) to have one person impose their view of "right" on the majority by armed standoff?

If that "majority" is doing something imoral and "armed standoff" is the only way to prevent it... I would have to say that there is a good case for it.

...Do we believe that citizens should be free of any and all government intrusion (i.e. majority forcing its will on the minority)?

Bryce

I believe that citizens should be free of any and all government intrusion as long as they aren't interfering with the rights of others.


I have answered your questions Bryce I have explained where I stand. You have made several intellectual arguements on this topic. However, I did ask you before, as I ask you now.

Do you believe it is RIGHT/MORAL etc. for the government (in this case local) to force a person to leave his/her house and land to make a golf course?

Please tell us/me where you stand on this specific issue.

 

[Attala_County]

OH,excuse me fer not be'in politically correct about homos and supporting communist countries.That must not be civil nough' fer yall Teexas folk. can'tcha dig it.

But seriously,dont be so sensitive.Its just a joke..

 

[Cosmoline]

Like it or not, the state has always had the power to take property for public use provided they provide "just compensation." I'm not really sure where these folks are getting the idea that taking property around an airport is unconstitutional.

This sort of intervention should be reserved for cases where a house is being demolished for a private mega mall or where regulations are so extreme that the government has effectively barred all use of the property.