---

They Define Eminent Domain to Benefit the Few.

---

When someone asks the government to define eminent domain, they rarely get a real answer.

The government has proven it does not want to limit itself in the strict use of this power. If it were to define it, it would then limit the process options.

Eminent domain is the right of the state to take private property for public use, it is mentioned in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, but this law has often been misinterpreted.

Through those misinterpretations, it has been implemented in the wrong ways and thus has taken away the rights and liberties of the people.

First, the property of someone should never be taken without due process, which means if the property of someone is seized because of wrongdoing, they have to be found guilty by the court before the land can be seized.

Also, if someone’s land is needed for public use, they must be compensated justly for that land, or the government cannot rightfully take it.

In addition, it was meant to be a federal amendment which would give the federal government the right to exercise eminent domain as it saw fit, but the right has been given to the states.

When the Supreme Court had to define eminent domain, they wanted to expand its purpose, and thus they allowed the state governments to have this power.

In practice this means that state governments are able to snatch up property of their taxpaying citizens without much thought at all.

---

---

The Fifth Amendment

This is clearly not what the forefathers intended, as eminent domain was actually supposed to protect the citizens from the government swooping in and seizing their property.

The reality of the situation is the government is using the Fifth Amendment as a way to seize the property of others, and by doing that, it is violating the Constitution.

Property rights are fundamental to the United States.

Without them, the U.S. is much like a police state, where everything can be taken by the government.

The Supreme Court made a political decision when it decided to define eminent domain.

With that decision, it took the rights from the people and gave them to the government.

---

Private Land

An ongoing problem with eminent domain is the government is seizing land and then selling it back to a developer who can then use it for private use. This is unjust.

When one chooses to define eminent domain as it should be defined, they can clearly see property is only supposed to be seized for public use.

It cannot be taken for private use, although it happens all too often. The court does not want to step in to put a halt to this practice of profiteering.

---

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is nothing more than a political organization. Its Justices often have little interest in the laws.

They will not do much in order to ensure the rights and liberties of the people. That has been proven over and over again.

The Supreme Court did the country a disservice when it decided to state eminent domain is a right of the states.

U.S. citizens are getting their rights taken away, and the Supreme Court is in on the act.

---

---