alt.politics.republicans

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:04:13 -0400, "Scruffy McScruffovitch"
wrote:

>In News rlj3c3higagpv3bi2r6thlbmjoj7s2i6mg@ ,, Don Homuth at
> , typed this:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:39:14 -0400, "Scruffy McScruffovitch"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In News iii3c351rhg9bl0lqjob1t0opmmem1fa8n@ ,, Don Homuth at
>>> , typed this:
>>>
>>
>>>> The owners Demand does not mean it's a Fair Price.
>>>
>>> It means that it is a fair price to the owner.
>>
>> Owners have, on more than one occasion, attempted to extort More than
>> the Real Market Value of property
>
>It is there property, the value of that property should be defined by the
>owner. If the governmene does not want to pay it, then they can find other
>property.

Which is a nice little statement, and had the FFs wanted it to be that
way, they likely would not have included the discussion of Eminent
Domain within the Constitution. But they did.

>> Quite naturally and reasonably there is a Due Process of Law that can
>> and will adjudicate the dispute. Says so right there in the
>> Constitution.
>>
>Where in the Consitution does it say that the government can confisticate
>property for private use?

Nowhere -- the ED discussion does not discuss Confiscation at all.
The term does not apply to an ED action.

>>>> The Real or Fair Market Value is what's a Fair Price.
>>>>
>>> And if the owner doesn't want to sell at the FMV?
>>
>> That's why there's an Eminent Domain clause in the Constitution in the
>> first place - to deal legally and appropriately with such rare
>> instances.
>
>That is called stealing or theft then.

Nope - You may Wish that it were called that, but it isn't.

>>> And you don't see any abuse in that,
>>> right?
>>
>> I don't see any abuse in the way it Really works out.
>
>That's because you're a government toady.

Nope -- that's because unlike you, I have some Knowledge of
Constitutional Law and statutory authorities and jurisdiction.

It is not dependent on Your wishes. It's dependent on what's written
there.