Where does the Constitution delegate the power to take land for public use?

[Mannlicher]

Those that bring up questions like this shold read the Constitution. At the very start, Article I, it says "All legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a Contress of the United States, which will consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
I think this is pretty clear. The Congress can pass laws, the Courts determine if they meet Constitutional standards. Simple.

 

[hugh damright]

Do you think the State of Virginia has the authority [to charge me a land tax]?

I think that, by right, Virginia belongs to Virginians. If we want to tax ourselves at the State level instead of the County level then I don't see what's to stop us. But the thing I am trying to address here is the idea that the US has the power of eminent domain, as if Virginia belongs to the US government , which I believe is a vision of monarchy.

 

[hugh damright]

The Congress can pass laws, the Courts determine if they meet Constitutional standards. Simple.

Where do the States enter this simple view? I was thinking that in a State the Judicial and Legislative branches are intended to check each other, but in an area as vast as the US it takes something much more, a further separation of powers, a separation of State and federal powers ... in other words, the US cannot check itself and the intended check on the US is the States.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Where do the States enter this simple view? I was thinking that in a State the Judicial and Legislative branches are intended to check each other, but in an area as vast as the US it takes something much more, a further separation of powers, a separation of State and federal powers ... in other words, the US cannot check itself and the intended check on the US is the States.

Well, we've lost the only two ordinary checks on Federal usurpation that the Founders built into the system. One was the inability of the Federal Government to directly tax the wages and earnings of State citizens, and the other was that Senators were chosen by their State legislatures for the purpose of representing in the Federal Government the interests of the States, i.e., the States' interest in retaining the powers of sovereign statehood as against Federal usurpation. Those two bulwarks against Federal usurpation having both been removed in 1913, by Congressionally introduced and driven Constitutional amendments, left the door wide open to Federal usurpation, and we've witnessed the predictable results.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Those that bring up questions like this shold read the Constitution.

On the contrary, it was reading the Constitution that inspired my question.

 

[Al Norris]

I agree, Hawkeye, that the 16th and 17th amendments were the death of traditional federalism.

But I think you also have to look at the effects that the 14th amendment caused, and the decision in Texas v White which legitimized the actions of Lincoln. From it's inception in 1788 to the start of secession, a mere 70 odd years later, the Republic was lost.

All that has been happening since then, is the slow consolidation of power by the National Government and the relentless homogenization of it's people.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Yes, Al, the Fourteenth was a contributor also, however, it was not so much the actual Amendment as the so called incorporation doctrine that played a big part in turning federalism on its head.

 

[hugh damright]

I think the 14th failed, so they kicked the Southerners out of Congress and voted again, and I think that wasn't enough and they had to kick New Jersey out too ... then they put the States under military rule until they agreed to the 14th ... I don't consider this to be an attack on federalism as much as an attack on constitutional government and free government and rule of law.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I think the 14th failed, so they kicked the Southerners out of Congress and voted again, and I think that wasn't enough and they had to kick New Jersey out too ... then they put the States under military rule until they agreed to the 14th ... I don't consider this to be an attack on federalism as much as an attack on constitutional government and free government and rule of law.

Absolutely correct.

 

[mountainclmbr]

This is crazy. What did the constitution establish? Was it totalitarian communism or freedom. Who was in charge? The elitist dictators or the people?

THE GOVERNMENT WAS MEANT TO HAVE LIMITED POWERS TO PREVENT THEM FROM INFRINGING ON PERSONAL RIGHTS!

Taking property to give to another may be OK. But, only if it is politician property given away and, if precedent is followed, the citizen will make out like a king and the politician will be left with a lifetime of debt. The other way around is what we fought against in the revolution.

This debate about the government powers to destroy citizens is backwards!!!!! My question is: When do politicians become crimminally accountable? Today's standard is clearly backward.

Arguing about the intent of the founders is easy. If the exact words are left to lawyers, I should be able to steal your mother's false teeth and then charge for damages!
OK, debate what "is" means some more. That is: how much can the government kill or harm the citizens who pay them while claiming it is for those same citizens rights? Am I livestock to be fleeced for the benefit of the corrupt government civil servants?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Mountainclimber, you are essentially paraphrasing the words of Thomas Paine when he remarked that Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Either way you look at it, then, it's evil.

 

[mountainclmbr]

The Real Hawkeye, yes I agree. But there are degrees of violations. When my earnings are taken by 50% from total taxes and after that my property may still be taken, I feel I have given more than my share. Especially when the tax laws are made to encourage class warfare between those who don't pay taxes and those who do. I get less protection under the law, but pay way more taxes. The rewards of this system are showing up as dividends in the crime rate statistics, which are being twisted to regulate for much more of the same.

 

[mountainclmbr]

This is crazy. What did the constitution establish? Was it totalitarian communism or freedom. Who was in charge? The elitist dictators or the people?

THE GOVERNMENT WAS MEANT TO HAVE LIMITED POWERS TO PREVENT THEM FROM INFRINGING ON PERSONAL RIGHTS!

Taking property to give to another may be OK. But, only if it is politician property given away and, if precedent is followed, the citizen will make out like a king and the politician will be left with a lifetime of debt. The other way around is what we fought against in the revolution.

This debate about the government powers to destroy citizens is backwards!!!!! My question is: When do politicians become crimminally accountable? Today's standard is clearly backward.

Arguing about the intent of the founders is easy. If the exact words are left to lawyers, I should be able to steal your mother's false teeth and then charge for damages!
OK, debate what "is" means some more. That is: how much can the government kill the citizens who pay them while claiming it is for those same citizens rights.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Mountainclimber, you are essentially paraphrasing the words of Thomas Paine when he remarked that Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Either way you look at it, then, it's evil.

 

[antarti]

I'll let the heavy hitters handle the tough stuff, while I take this softball:

There were, as of Sept. 2004, 1.6 million federal civilian workers with 2.4 million civilian workers collecting pensions.

Tossing 1.6 million people into the job market and destroying the pensions of 2.4 million, many of which have not reached SS retirement age, would be crisis enough. But wait! we are getting rid of all these various departments and programs. This throws another 28.8 million (as of 2001 - table on Page 200) people who are on SS to the wolves.

You don't see these numbers as a problem... that they got so large in the first place?

Ever wonder why government spending is figured into the GDP, when all government money was extracted from wage earners (taxes) and savers (inflation & borrowing from the banksters) in the first place?

When you do the math (remove govt spending from GDP) and discover what our REAL GDP is, you can then do a true debt/GDP analysis. You will find that we are in damn sorry shape macro-economically speaking, and getting worse all the time.

About 2/3rds of all debt (now and going forward) is entitlements spending. Really want more (hey, millions already!) govt employees on SS, whose paychecks were the publics tax in the FIRST place? Looks like a snake eating itself to me.

Amazing that the economy can "absorb" 10 -20 million illegals just fine, but 2 million or 20 million more (ostensibly educated and English speaking) Americans will throw us into turmoil...

Get rid of the 3/4/5 letter departments and their regulations, and you will start reclaiming Trillions of dollars in lost opportunity cost and eliminate market-distortions introduced by the government.

There wont be any "jobs Americans won't do" if the Nanny-state turns off the tap.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well said antarti, and very true.