On 11/2/2011 4:33 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Sancho wrote:

On 11/2/2011 7:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
The US government constitutionally can take anything they want
for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking
clause).

Courts have not upheld that overly broad declaration.


It is a little bit of superfluity, but not all that much. At least at
the Fed level, there has to be some public purpose, but the courts have
pretty much said public purpose is whatever the government says it is.
The ability to invoke eminent domain has always been around, viewed by
the courts as being inherent in sovereignty. It rests in the legislature
to say what can be condemned, but can be delegated to others.. say RRs
or utility.
The "public purpose" is the use defined in the constitution, statute
or ordinance. Berman v Parker set the modern definition of "public use"
when it decided the government could take the land and lease it to a
private developer for $1 a year. The same with Kelo v New London (CT).
In that case a resort hotel and conference center, new state park,
80-100 new residences, research, office and rental space, was a public
use and New London could condemn it. (Although these are related to
state or local condemnation, they all raised Fed constitutional
questions of what was a public purpose under the US constitution.
Find me a FEDERAL ruling that says differently from what I
mentioned.
States can, and do, add things to their laws on emmenient domain.

The fact that Kelo's land remains a vacant lot after all these years is
not lost on the public or the courts.