Comment

Comment on If the Federal Government wanted to make a new planned city, would they be able to use Eminent Domain?

setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

I’m not an expert, but I did just listen to a podcast on this (which basically make me an expert, right?)

I think yes, technically, legally the federal government could. ‘Kelo v. City Of New London’ ruled that purely economic development was a sufficient justification for eminent domain. The reaction by most states was to make their own laws limiting eminent domain powers so that the Kelo situation couldn’t happen with the state government, but the federal government has never passed laws limiting its powers. Bills like S.1313 were introduced but never passed.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Reverendender@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
You also now qualify to to teach college in the state of Florida

source
- Zorque@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  They might be over-qualified, actually.
  
  source
  - HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    They’re literate, so you are correct.
    
    source
someguy3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Link to podcast?

source
- setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  The Prosecutors: Legal Briefs, episode 117.
  
  The show is hosted by two prosecutors, so in various episodes their opinions skew heavily pro-prosecutor, but when laying out facts like going through a SCOTUS case they tend to be more fact based and less opinion based, I have found.
  
  source
  - someguy3@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Just finished listening and have to say that was incredibly bias and wilfully withholding discussion. The obvious other part to me is “just compensation”, that’s the right that is being provided in the amendment. But they never discuss that, they focus only on “public use” - which while can be discussed shouldn’t be the only avenue of discussion. And they continually talk as if Kelo’s property was taken without compensation. I know prosecutors are supposed to argue their case and ignore everything else, and that’s what they did. This was certainly not an academic exercise to present and discuss all information. I certainly won’t be subscribing.
    
    source
    setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner’s will.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments