Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Rail hypo is easy: If there is a determination that we need a public route for access between two towns, that is exactly the sort of public need that eminent domain was intended to ease. Now, as long as the rail route is going to be available as a public accomodation (yes, for cost), I view it as a public benefit. If you were to tell me that we would permit the railroad to enter into arrangements to agree to only transport Company Y's materials, and to refuse transport to Company X, or that the railroad could decide to exclude all Scandanavians, then I would no longer agree.
But why do you want the government to have my Tom Seaver card? They can go on e-bay any day and buy a Tom Seaver card -- why should they get mine.
|
As much as I hate to do it I have to agree with the dinasour. As long as you are being compensated for your property I think the power of eminent domain should be farreaching. In our society, only allowing emminent domain for really limited circumstances is unrealistic. Like the prior example, if a company is going to build a plant in the community but can only build it on a certain site, the government should be able to take it for the benefit of the community. You could have one insane person that could screw the entire community. On the legal side, you only have the right to be legally compensated for your property. You do not have a absolute right to hold onto it. Our legal system has a long tradition of making people "whole" again through monetary compensation. As for your Tom Seaver card, if the government can get one some where else, then no it should not be able to take it. But what if you were holding the last original copy of the Declaration of Independance. Shouldn't the government be able to take it.
