Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 164702" data-attributes="member: 373">Like I said the determination of "excess" lands is likely certainly debatable. As to who should determine it, I would guess the proper entity would be neither the govt nor "factions"  of people (Madison commented on this in the Federalist papers #10) that have a vested interest. I am guessing there are companies (maybe allen knows) that could determine if these lands are actually needed for the original purpose of the takings. Can anyone provide the information to show if recreation was a purpose listed under the original takings? or was it added later under a management plan? Just going off memory here but I thought it was shown in a previous thread that recreation was added later under a developed COE management plankurt and espringers, out of curiousity, do you see any issues with a govt being able to claim a takings for one purpose then after the fact change the purpose to take or keep more lands than originally needed? Keep in mind this "govt" is the likes of Sen Reid and company.............that is the problem with govt perpetual easements, they reserve the right to change them at their discretion and those impacted have no option to opt out or change. I don't think our Founders envisioned a Federal govt with that much power. I'm leery about chipping away on a cornerstone of the foundation of this nation they created.- - - Updated - - -The govt "takes" land 20% beyond what is needed for flood control and then to appease the people it keeps the excess lands for "recreation"...The govt takes 20% more lands than needed for wind and solar energy development and then to appease the people it keeps the excess for food production for the community food pantries. The govt takes extra lands for a hiway development (just to be safe) and then to appease the people used the excess for housing developments for minorities and the poor.Each end use is far different than the original takings purpose yet is well meaning, yet in fact serves one purpose.........re electing those in power in govt.If the govt is going to take or keep lands for a purpose other than what was originally agreed upon, they need to provide "fair and just compensation" for those new takings purposes as the Constitution requires. the difficulty of doing that 50 years later for reasons others have listed here is why the importance of holding the govt to the original purpose of the takings is critical.Think of what would happen if for every takings thru emminent domain they could just take 20% more than needed and repurpose the usage to appease the people. Think of how long it would take politicians (the govt) to realize they could use that to stay in power. It has happened in other countries. Look at what it has accomplished in this thread with politicians gaining or losing votes..........Perhaps others trust the likes of Harry Reid and his cronies in the swamp..............I trust our Constitution.</blockquote>

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

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA