Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 164697" data-attributes="member: 373">Not saying this is the same as Oregon........outside of the power the govt wields when it wants private property. And how that relates to ones decision to resist or accept what is offered. I get the need for emminent domain. The govt needs a means to create public projects where there is private lands. But our Founders made private property rights a cornerstone of this nations Constitution and creation. A govt that has the power to take private property can if not held accountable and controlled be a very dangerous thing to the tennents this nation was Founded on. The Founders knew this to be true and debated it in writing the amendments. Apparently this property has been deemed by the govt to be "excess".....that can likely be debated under the recreation caveat. But if under the rule of law (which the 5th amendment requires due process in a takings) this nation is supposed to follow, it is........then We the people should require the govt not "take" and hold any more private property than is necessary to accomplish their projects. I am not familiar with the language included under the "due process" at the time in which these lands were taken to speak to whether recreation was included at that time or added after the fact. The Founding fathers in writing the amendments to the Constitution had a great concern over a govt power to "take" private property. It was written about in the Federalist papers as well.  I simply tend to think they were pretty smart and agree that power to "take" private property should be limited and controlled and that we should not ignore our Constitution for recreational reasons. Our State legislature is one way to hold the Federal govt accountable in this regard.  We in return must hold our state legislators accountable to ensure this has a Constitutional rule of law basis. Despite what others may think or claim, this is not about who owns the land for me nor would there be any kind of gain, it is about staying with the intent of our Constitution as put forth by the Founders based off the very real concerns they had gaining freedom from the govt they did. We can not start to pick and choose and chip away at what parts of our Constitution we want to follow, the liberal already is trying to lead this nation down that path. We were given something amazing in our Constitution if we can keep it.- - - Updated - - -Apparently the Corp has deemed this land "excess" for flood control requirements so apparently it is not used or need for that. Was recreation "always" intended when these lands were originally taken by the govt or was that later added under the management plan? The land is not being "given" back to those non natives, but sold at market value. (which would provide a pretty good ROI to the tax payer) Are there boat ramps/docks that would be sold? What legislators would end up with these properties? If there are lands that are needed for access there should be terms written for public access in the sale. Or if recreation is determined to be an original purpose of the land "takings" those lands should be kept.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA