U.S. to Condemn Land for Flight 93 Memorial

Manual, I’m not arguing and please don’t take it that way. Property rights are essential to true freedom. I do part ways with you concerning the governments right to confiscate property at all.

If I have a house and a road needs to be widened and the government wants to give me what they claim is fair market value I should have the right to reject their offer. If the government needs it, it is worth much more than the houses in the rest of the neighborhood.

:confused:The government is protecting the constitutional rights of the property owners:

No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This has been the law of the land since 1791.

I thiink because she was the wife of a president had a lot to do with it…Their 2 children are also buried there

I am not sure other military can have their wives buried there…I have heard that actually Arlington is getting filled

I think it is grabby for the govt just to snatch up peoples property because they want to build a memorial… Many people have died in defense of this country…The people on that flight were patriots, but I am not sure that others should be trampled on because of them…People die defending this country every day at home and abroad…think of firemen and policemen, and they don’t get a memorial

I think it is unwise to argue that the government should not have eminent domain. Without it, we would surely not be here today on the internet but would be a third world country. We simply can not have society today without a road and transportation system. I do not know that this action here is wise. It seems to me that a negotiated settlemen could be made to satisfy all. I am willing to bet that part of the reluctance to sell on the part of the owners is the dollar signs in their eyes for what will happen to their property values. In which case the memorial could be built elsewhere, or the land zoned to prohibit commercial construction (hotels, restraunts).

In any case, negaotiations should come first.

I agree with roads and other necessary structures as legitimate reasons for eminent domain.

However, a 9/11 memorial is not a legitimate reason. It does not provide a public service, as nice as it would be. If the government is allowed to get away with this, then where will the line be drawn?

who dteremines that value, the government? so beacuse they are paid it isnt stealing. i think it is analogy time.

i show up at your door and ask to buy your car and you decline, if i take it it is stealing. but what if instead i pull a gun and say this car, a 2009 bently with all the options, is worth $5 i give you that and take the car. did i steal? as the person in power i paid you what i said it was worth.

Not a very apt analogy, as we are a nation that respects the rule of law, so if the government isn’t playing fair, you can appeal the matter in a court. Then you can appeal that decision in a higher court, and so on.

so you can appeal the goverments decesion to that same goverment?

and we have the rights protecting our property how is this an example of the goverment respecting those laws?

Well, no. As I mentioned earlier, we generally respect the rule of law here. One way we are able to maintain this in the US is the separation of powers. The decision to pursue condemnation is taken by a legislative or more commonly an executive body. After that government body votes to condemn a property, a petition must be filed so the court can record the property transfer, as it would with any transfer by sale or inheritance. Unlike your average banana republic, the judicial branch is largely independent of the other branches, so there is a reasonable chance it will rule against the government if the opposing side’s case has merit.

[quote=aggiecatholic05]and we have the rights protecting our property how is this an example of the goverment respecting those laws?
[/quote]

Can you clarify specifically what you’re asking in that sentence? I already quoted the Fifth Amendment which provides the modern legal foundation for eminent domain (before that it was a part of English common law). Also, would you mind answering my question in #14?

D. all of the above

Exactly, this is the heart of the matter. Need to widen a road, etc, then lets get the land appriased and sit and talk. Want to build a memorial? Take a hike.

So you have to hire lawyers and test if your pockets are deep enough to battle the government?

The fifth amendment didn’t stop the government declaring eminent domain and taking/ confiscating private homes to provide a parking lot for Pfizer in Connecticut.

Basically the government makes you and offer you can’t refuse. Sounds like the mafia with a flag.

The difference is that the Mafia can be reasoned with.

HA! I should not insult the mafia like that, forgive me.

So tell me the legal basis for your objection to eminent domain. To me, it certainly seems well-established in our centuries-old legal tradition.

Usually, yes - as is true anytime you have to battle the government.

A battle provoked by the government.

I guess it’s easy to support as long as they don’t bully me off my property. Hey, if it’s the other guy who cares?! Not very Catholic but nowadays it’s all about me.

Not the Obamafia----“La Obama Nostra”.

I’m not sure I understand your post. Are you suggesting those who accept the principle of eminent domain are selfish and not very Catholic?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.