Eminent Domain Abuse Circa 1897?

Journal of San Diego History ^

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Shortly after the Abila case was remanded for a new trial in San Diego, Judge Ross in Los Angeles was preparing to rule on the Irrigation District's demurrer to Mrs. Bradley's bill of complaint. In a decision that "fell like a thunderbolt from the clear heaven, staggering investors and invalidating all the bonds issued under the [Wright l act," Judge Ross declared the Wright Act unconstitutional on July 22, 1895.28

Mrs. Bradley's suit in equity alleged that the Wright Act conflicted with the provisions of the California constitution, that it provided for the taking of property without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that it provided for the taking of private property for a private use.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

This is a long read, but apparently Jefferson was right.

=======The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.================

Also of note are these.......

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html Look for the ACLU on the ruling against GM, yet they are silent now that the SCOTUS is ruled by libs.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html This liberal fascist in favor of her corporate cronies had a stadium built in April 1991.(reference ASFDA)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html#3

Keep pushing for originalist judges so we don't lose our land. Without ownership of your property, the american dream is dead.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

PING

[fish hawk]

I thought Americans loved Eminent Domain. After all they used it to acquire most if not all lands taken from the American Indians. Of course later in California, they paid us for it at 25 cents an acre. Seems the shoe is on the other foot now. How ironic.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Without the existance of a government there could've been no eminent domain.

^^^^^^^Of course later in California, they paid us for it at 25 cents an acre.^^^^^^^^^^^

And did they accept or refuse that price?

[visualops]

Without ownership of your property, the american dream is dead


Very true, and you need the RKBA to protect it.

[fish hawk]

Oh...that makes it okay then. Gee sorry.

[fish hawk]

One could have refused the money but why would they just let the same government that stole the land keep the money, even if it was pennies? As far as 'the price' goes, there was not bargaining. Just like it will be when they take your place. Here is how the bargaining goes: My place is worth one million dollars. Oh, well, here is the 100,000 we say it is worth.

[Chu Gary]

"One could have refused the money but why would they just let the same government that stole the land keep the money, even if it was pennies? As far as 'the price' goes, there was not bargaining. Just like it will be when they take your place. Here is how the bargaining goes: My place is worth one million dollars. Oh, well, here is the 100,000 we say it is worth."

At the time of which you are speaking, one million dollars would probably have purchased half of the current United States. OK, maybe no one understood land values then but to indicate that Indians were hoodwinked is prepostorous! Should the Indians have demanded 50 billion dollars for NYC which is probably worth that now instead of $26 or whatever of trinkets that they got from the pilgrims?

[LibertarianInExile]

I just want to know at what point you stop with the "justice."

Is it okay, then, for American Puritans to sue England to recover property they gave up under duress?

Is it okay, then, for slave owners to sue the Union to recover property they gave up under duress?

Please, let us all know, we're eager to see at what point "justice" must be served to you and all comers, and its expiration date.

[FReethesheeples]

Bump. Thanks for this post. For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Consitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply ciritcal of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme ct. decisons when they were both on that ct. and he has been quoted as being sharply crticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, inclduing being qu0oted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.

[fish hawk]

I'm not talking 1800s here. This took place in about 1952. Even in 1952 we knew the difference between money and strings of beads.

[fish hawk]

How about reading your treaty? Like, "as long as the rivers flow and as long as the grasses grow." Last time I looked they were still growing and flowing. We have your signature on the papers. The courts know this too and that is why the Indians win these law suits all the time. Indians have learned how to play the lawyer game.

Now, that being all said and done. Come on down to our Casino and bring lots of money.

[LibertarianInExile]

"How about reading your treaty?"

First off, it ain't my treaty. If it had been my place to treat with native tribes, they'd have been temporary armistices, not treaties. And the wars would have been resumed ASAP. If you fight a war, you win it by killing your enemy or making him integrate with your own way of life, not signing a peace treaty with him and promising to preserve his way of life. If it were my place to make a treaty, you wouldn't be suing or bitching about the white man, because your relatives would be fertilizing a field somewhere. Nothing personal. I just don't like America spilling blood fighting a war and then leaving the hassle of amalgamation or integration to be dealt with later. Either integrate or sow the f'in land with salt, but end a war with the war settled permanently.

Like, "as long as the rivers flow and as long as the grasses grow." Last time I looked they were still growing and flowing. We have your signature on the papers. The courts know this too and that is why the Indians win these law suits all the time. Indians have learned how to play the lawyer game.

But that is different from what you said--which is that an historic agreement between the U.S. and a party under duress shouldn't be honored in today's courts. I agree 100% that the written treaties that the U.S. made with Injun tribes should be honored, 100%. But I'm not about to agree that U.S. courts should set aside treaties on the grounds that they were made under duress. Treaties aren't contracts. They are international agreements. If past treaties are allowed to abridged on the basis of duress, then Germany can rearm and the Japanese can go back to venerating their emperor as a God.

Now, that being all said and done. Come on down to our Casino and bring lots of money.

As soon as you start selling top-grade guns and quality drugs, and renting clean hookers. Then I'm not only going to bring lots of money, I'll see if I can get a partner and buy a cathouse on the res myself, since the customers are guaranteed. :^)

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well if fish hawk's an Injun are you a Cowboy? A calf could buck you.

It's your treaty like the Constitution is your constitution. Nobody made provision for the "palefaces" to put it to a vote every generation or it expires.

I was wondering how long it would take an "Injun" to point out a certain irony in Kelo. But I never thought it would happen first on FR, rather than in the MSM.

[fish hawk]

"Injun". That one word alone negates your whole statement. Your slip is showing.(prejudice)

[RegulatorCountry]

"The over-riding principle of the greatest good for the greatest number occasionally has growing pains."

There are a couple hundred million people in the former Soviet Union, China and Cambodia who might reluctantly agree with your assessment, had their deaths not been deemed "the greatest good for the greatest number."

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

You're welcome. I hoped many would be involved in this thread and would see just how far this goes. I myself(as is obvious) am very, very concerned with my home property rights as I jsut last year became a home owner. The last thing I thought I'd have to worry about was the government taking it. I figured fire.... sinkhole, tornado, snowstorm...... hurricane..... who knows what will happen. But this blindsided me and gave me the same feeling I had on 9/11. That evil, empty feeling. I hate that feeling.

And I agree about AG gonzalez. He's NOT an originalist therefore he doesn't belong on the SCOTUS.

[TheOtherOne]

Ah, history.

This government must be preserved in spite of the acts of any man or set of men. Nowhere in the world is presented a government of so much liberty and equality. To the humblest and poorest among us are held the highest privileges and positions. What constitutes the bulwark of our liberty and independence? It is not the frowning battlements, or bristling seacoast, our army and navy- These are not our reliance against tyranny. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere- Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves, must be its author and its finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time . . . or die by suicide. Surely God would not have created such a being as man, with an ability to grasp the infinite to exist only for a day. No . . . No . . . Man was made for immortality.