There comin for your land

Discussion in 'Homesteading Questions' started by ibcnya, Jun 29, 2005.

  1. ibcnya

    ibcnya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    437
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    South East Iowa
    I posted about this eminent domain law that was passed the other day thinking it would draw some ire from some and not one reply has been posted. There is another post about it that has gotten 3 replies. Maybe the word sheeple should be a word in the dictionary.
     
  2. SteveD(TX)

    SteveD(TX) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,373
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    There was at least 4 different threads on the subject in Families and General Chat, with at least 60 replies. Maybe yours was just overkill. Look around before you post and then gripe about no responses next time. :grump:
     

  3. Becky H.

    Becky H. Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    720
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    Mississippi
    I reserve homesteading forum for not so touchy homesteading issues and general chat for the hot heavy topics! :bash: So when I come back over to the homesteading forum (to ahhh relax) I already discussed it somewhere else so ignored yours, sorry. Come over to the other General chat to discuss it there is VERY heavy discussion going on in several posts already. :D
     
  4. rambler

    rambler Well-Known Member Supporter

    Messages:
    8,360
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    MN
    I'm so ticked about the whole deal I just didn't read _any_ of the messages around here about that deal until today. Since yours was short I looked at it, & here you are bashing me about it.... ;) There have been many many threads about this topic around here, now I won't bother looking at any more if it is all about bashing people & not the deal itself.

    Look around a bit before you jump on the soap box. I wanted some nice messages & thoughts, glad I stayed away from this topic..... My instincts were right.

    If you want change, don't go after the rest of us, call & write your legislatures, there should be enough groundswell on this issue to make a change on this for sure no matter which party is in charge of what. It flies so much in the face of what the USA stands for, it should be a no-brainer for the branches of govt to fix this.

    --->Paul
     
  5. palani

    palani Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,322
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    ibcnya

    I have a problem with your post. I don't believe there was any 'law passed' concerning eminent domain. Supreme court does not pass law. They interpret law. I am still waiting to see a copy of what they interpreted this time but I would be willing to guess it doesn't say anything about LAND. It probably says real estate or homes or businesses. LAND is protected by the original grant or patent. That is why it is so important not to buy property at a sherrifs' auction. You are only buying equity and not the LAND at sherrif auctions. Real estate is not LAND. Corporations can own real estate. Corporations can not own LAND without legislation from the state.

    Have a good day
     
  6. patarini

    patarini Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    503
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Location:
    tn
    Yes a corporation can own land -- also mineral rights, water rights etc 00 a corporation is a legal person with all rights except voting - thats why a corp can be charged with criminal acts. Didnt see the supreme court decision yet, but here is a quote
    But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.
    washington post 6/24/05
    When they take your house -- they aint leaving u the land it sits on!
    And yes there was no new law passed, just a new interpration of the constitution!
    here is the link to the decision
    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
     
  7. indypartridge

    indypartridge Well-Known Member Supporter

    Messages:
    1,559
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Location:
    Indiana
    SteveD is right - you were late to the party. There were numerous threads, some quite long, on several of the forums immediately following the decision. Your post was a couple of days afterward.
     
  8. ibcnya

    ibcnya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    437
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    South East Iowa
    My bust, I don't have alot of time to go through every forum. I'll take the heat for my rant. Forgive me for such a stupid oversight.
     
  9. Ozarkguy

    Ozarkguy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    196
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Location:
    Right HERE, of course!
    .

    If you want to catch up on this, go to top of page where it says "search" and type in Eminent Domain and you can read the ten posts started on this. Hope it helps....

    And we should ALL be furious about this decision! It seems that now your land is only yours until a developer wants it!

    Ozarkguy



    Search: Key Word(s): eminent, domain
    Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
    There comin for your land
    ibcnya Today 11:40 AM
    by ibcnya 7 315 Homesteading Questions
    How will we know when "things are too bad"?
    sisterpine Today 11:19 AM
    by Don Armstrong 17 370 Freedom! Self Reliance
    Eminent Domain Petition
    amarillo Yesterday 02:51 PM
    by amarillo 2 55 Freedom! Self Reliance
    That new private land law...
    kesoaps Yesterday 08:53 AM
    by YuccaFlatsRanch 5 329 Homesteading Questions
    Eminent Domain Petition
    amarillo 06-29-2005 02:08 PM
    by cwgrl23 1 93 Countryside Families
    Hotel on Supreme Court Justice's land?
    auntieemu 06-29-2005 01:43 PM
    by auntieemu 0 35 Freedom! Self Reliance
    Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
    mowarren 06-29-2005 08:54 AM
    by auntieemu 7 195 Freedom! Self Reliance
    10,000 people to be removed from their homes...
    antiquestuff 06-28-2005 12:03 PM
    by antiquestuff 0 87 Freedom! Self Reliance
    Executed actions before a Insurrection!
    TomK 02-19-2005 05:35 PM
    by oz in SC 16 684 Freedom! Self Reliance
    Why do we do this?
    j.r. guerra in s. tx. 10-11-2003 05:33 PM
    by Bob in WI 14 486 Freedom! Self Reliance

    .
     
  10. diane

    diane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,983
    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    Location:
    South Central Michigan
    I would think that rather than reacting, we need to be proactive. There is a bill before congress now, if I understand correctly, that would limit the powers of Eminent Domain. We need to get educated and active to see that this is done and done correctly.
     
  11. palani

    palani Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,322
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    patarini

    Corporations certainly seem to be able to take possession of land but they can't own land lawfully without legislation. Here is a common law cite:

    Blackstone, Commentary of the Laws of England, Volume 1, pg 475 - on the rights of corporations: item (2) To purchase lands, and hold them, for the benefit of themselves and their successors. Footnote (5) All corporations must have a license from the king to enable them to purchase and hold lands in mortmain.

    In other words a corporation needs to have the approval of the sovereign (legislature) and then can only hold lands under mortmain (a dead hand) and not under the same mechanism as a living being.

    Before you object to the source of this cite you might consider that this is a common law country and the source of our laws come from England through the mechanism of the constitution. There is an awful lot of fiction going around these day.

    You posted :

    When they take your house -- they aint leaving u the land it sits on!

    Check out Blackstone volume 2 pg 198 :"Thus, if a dissisor turns me out of possession of my lands he thereby gains a mere naked possession, and I still retain the right of possession, and right of property. If the disseisor dies, and the lands descend to his son, the son gains an apparent right of possession; but I still retain the actual right both of possession and property. If I acquiesce for thirty years, without bringing any action to recover possession of the lands, the son gains the actual right of possession and I retain nothing but the mere right of property. And even this right of property will fail, or at least it will be without a remedy, unless I pursue it within the space of 60 years. "

    Here is another one: An antient maxim of law , that no title is completely good, unless the right of possession be joined with the right of property; which right is then denominated a double right, jus duplicatum, or droit droit ... then and only then is the title completely legal.

    A relative bought 50 acres of pasture in the 1930's from a neighbor. Course the common fenceline was off from the legal description by about 100 feet in the neighbors' favor. If my relative had caught it within 10 years he could have forced the neighbor to move the fence. After 10 years the neighbor had legal possession because the fence made the law thru adverse possession. However, my relative still owned the land but couldn't sell it because he didn't have possession. On the other hand, the neighbor couldn't sell the land either because he only had possession and not legal title. What a mess.

    Does this sound similar to the situation being described with eminent domain.

    If these are not good enough arguments then look up the definition of eminent domain in Blacks' Law Dictionary - The right of eminent domain is the right of the state , through its regular organization, to reassert, either temporarily or permanently, its dominion over any portion of the soil of the state ... In my state (public land state west of the mississippi river) the federal government only ceded section 16 of each township to the state and the land between low tide and high tide. How can the state REASSERT dominion when it never had ASSERTED it to begin with?