This morning, I had the privilege of being the first person
I have ever heard on Breitbart's morning XM show to be told they were ignorant
and dismissed. Guess I hit a nerve when
I tried to say that the Keystone Pipeline, which I support, is not absolutely
tied to Eminent Domain (I refer to the specific Eminent Domain right of
government with capitals differently from the not-capitalized conceptual right
of eminent domain). The host totally
shut me down and would not stop cutting me off or allow me to discuss the
possibility that they were not inseparable.
He continued to quote Donald Trump, as if Trump is the final word on
anything governmental or constitutional, to say that the pipeline can't be done
without eminent domain and that I could not support the pipeline and not the
use of eminent domain to build the pipeline.
He told me that I needed to learn what Eminent Domain was and to call
back when I learned something. I took
pride in the fact that I won. When a
person quits discussing and begins attacking then you know you've won; they
have nothing left but to attack.
So, without looking up a thing, because I do know what
Eminent Domain is and don't need to look it up, let me explain Eminent Domain for
Donald Trump and his sycophants.
Eminent Domain is the right or authority of the government
over land or property (generally land) and their right or authority to take it
for providing necessary government
services.
For instance, suppose a group of people get together and
form a city. The city needs a place to
hold the city government and the people grant the city the authority to create
such a place of government. Well, the
city needs a plot of land to build a city hall.
Since there's not such a thing as un-owned land, the city must get land
from somewhere or someone. If no
suitable place can be purchased - any owners refuse to sell, the city can
exercise their eminent domain in order to take that thing that they must have.
If the city must take the land, there's nothing that says
you, as an individual citizen, are more or less likely to hold the land to be
taken; the city must therefore, fairly, just take the land that is the most
suitable, regardless of who owns it.
Luckily, in the United States of America, our Constitution requires that
they must pay the person whose land they take for City Hall. That's well and good, but by the very act of
taking a person's land, they harm the liberty of that person and every person
more than the cash value of the land, therefore, eminent domain must be used
cautiously and judiciously.
We have, as a society, generally accepted that roads,
schools, electricity and water, are all necessary services of government
because we, the individual governed, cannot provide those types of services on
our own. Note that I said the individual
governed.
As an individual, we are all guaranteed equal protection
under the law. That means that the
public utility cannot take the high-voltage lines across your property, alter
the route to go around the property of the mayor, and back onto the original
route. They must take the most expedient
route - whether it is based on direct route, cheapest to install, easiest to
maintain, or whatever they can morally, ethically, and legally justify as the
most expedient route. That means that if
the most expedient route goes across your property, you're getting high-voltage
lines or perhaps being bought out, depending on technical and locally legal
requirements. You can't decline or say
no. You do get "compensation"
for your loss.
Where Eminent Domain gets misused, possibly misunderstood,
and abused, is when eminent domain is used to take private property and give
that property to another for the profit of that other. We've seen this when governments have used
eminent domain to justify taking private land and given that land to private
enterprises to build malls, hospitals, or other private enterprises. The Supreme Court of the United States has
even upheld the right of local governments to take your property and give it to
another individual who might use your property to generate greater revenue for
the city (the original point of my call to Breitbart was that government should
not be run like a business).
But the Supreme Court's ruling, in fact any Supreme Court
ruling, does not make a thing constitutional or unconstitutional (the Supreme
Court upheld slavery and many other ideas that today's courts, sometimes write
and sometimes wrong, would not uphold).
A Supreme Court ruling doesn't make a thing right or wrong and it
doesn't make it the law of the land. It
simply makes it legal precedence that lower courts will cite when making their
own rulings.
No court or person is bound by the ruling of the Supreme
Court other than in the specific case in front of the Court. It is only in the willingness of the lower
courts and judiciary to accept the ruling in one case as precedent in another
case that gives the Court their power.
Judges follow the ruling of the Supreme Court because, in their minds -
and they may or may not be correct - the cases before them, if presented to the
Supreme Court, would have outcomes similar to the cited cases. Judges don't want to be overturned so they go
along. And I'm not saying that judges
should not follow the rulings of the Court.
There's a certain fiduciary responsibility that they have to not waste
the time and resources of government litigating cases that have a known (or
believed) ultimate outcome.
Just because the Supreme Court has ruled in one or more
cases that a city can take private land, even if you're
"compensated", and give that land to a different private and
profit-seeking enterprise does not make that thing right, moral, ethical,
constitutional or even legal. It simply
means you have no recourse to stop the taking short of voting in politicians
that will put ethical justices on the Supreme Court.
So, if XYZ Corp, Inc., wants to build a shopping mall in
your town and you have a great 10 acre lot right next to major thoroughfare and
very close to a freeway on-ramp, and XYZ Corp wants your land. Ignoring the fact that there are probably 10
acres 2 miles down the road at the next onramp, XYZ Corp has decided that they
want your land. The city may not legally
take your land, compensation or not, and give it to XYZ Corp (what they might
do illegally and with the force of an armed police force to back them up is
something altogether different).
If XYZ Corp wants your land and you don't want to sell, then
XYZ Corp has two (legal, ethical, and moral) choices - neither of which involve
the government taking your private property and giving it to XYZ Corp. XYZ Corp can either move their project down
the road - even to another town if that's what it means - or they can pay you
the price it takes to get you to sell.
Who gets to set that price? You
do! If your price doesn't fit in XYZ
Corp's financial goals then they can take the other option but, in most cases,
when someone won't sell at any price there really is a price. If you have property which might sell for a
hundred thousand dollars if you wanted to sell it, and if the value might be
two-hundred thousand dollars in XYZ Corp's business model, you're well within
your rights to not sell or name any price you want. So if XYZ Corp wants it, they can pay you ten
million dollars for your hundred-thousand dollar property. If they can't make a profit at that then
don't do the deal. There's almost always
a price; business just don't always want to pay that price and will convince
government to use force to make you sell not at the price for which you're
willing to sell but, instead, at the price the business is willing to pay.
Some may disagree with me (obviously some do or such cases
would never have happened) and that's a different topic. This article is targeted at those who do
believe in individual liberty and sovereignty, accepting that they have
voluntarily, or their forefathers before them have, to surrender some sovereignty
for the benefits of a limited government.
If you believe that there are those who have some inalienable or
God-given rights or authority over you then that's a topic for a different
article. If you believe in inalienable
rights and in the God-given liberty of Man then you must also believe that a
government created by the people, for the people, cannot simply take your
property and give it to another for the benefit of that other - even if such
benefit yields a greater tax revenue to the government.
When I called Breitbart this morning, I had only wanted to
point out that government is not a business and, acknowledging that Donald
Trump has great business skill, business skills aren't what I believed was
needed. When the host prodded for more
details of what I meant, I mentioned Trump's views on Eminent Domain and was
quickly cut off with the argument that it is not possible to support the
Keystone Pipeline without supporting Eminent Domain. First off, I do support Eminent Domain - when
used for necessary government services.
I've recently had my land cut up for a water pumping station and for fiber
optic cable. I don't like the scars and
the above-ground pieces of both left right in view out my front window but I
accept that it had to be done and I had no legal objection to make.
So back to the Keystone Pipeline. On Breitbart, this morning, they had some
economic advisor to Trump as a guest - I can't remember his name but he came
from Senator Jeff Session's staff. I
can't look him up since I'm writing this article without looking up a thing to
demonstrate that I understand Eminent Domain quite well. This economic advisor piled on (agreeing with
me on some points but not on this key point) by saying that Eminent Domain was
necessary for public utilities - a point on which we agree - and that pipelines
are public utilities - a point on which I generally agree but do not agree in
regards the Keystone Pipeline. He also
said hospitals are a necessary service of government. He must be an Obama supporter since he thinks
that the government is responsible for our healthcare. For me, personally, I’ve paid enough medical
bills to understand that hospitals are big business and very much a for-profit
business.
The Keystone Pipeline is intended to move Canadian oil from
Canada to shipping facilities in Houston, Texas. For those facilities in Houston, this is a
great thing. For Canada, this is a great
thing. For the owners/operators of the
pipeline, this is a great thing. What
does it do for Nebraska? At best, it can
only be compared to taking private property for a shopping mall. The best outcome of the Keystone Pipeline, to
most Americans, is a temporary increase in spending in their location as
construction crews come through and a longer-term increase in Houston oil
shipping terminals revenues and, subsequently, taxes paid by those operating
the terminals - assuming they weren't given huge tax breaks that would
eliminate the tax revenue.
The pipeline is certainly not a necessary service of
government. It is, plain and simple, a
business enterprise. I believe that
government needs to get out of the way of business and allow a free-market
economy to decide the winners and losers.
In the same breath that so many so-called libertarians are saying that
ethanol subsidies need to be stopped, they want the government to guarantee the
success and profitability of the Keystone Pipeline. That is not the role of government.
I do support the Keystone Pipeline. I think that the government needs to
immediately approve the project. But the
project needs to succeed or fail on its own.
If Trump is right that it cannot succeed without eminent domain - or, in
other words, cannot succeed without taking from some citizens and giving their
property to this commercial enterprise - then it should just fail. If it doesn't make good business sense
without taking from others then it just doesn't make good business sense. I'm ok with that.
If the owners of the Keystone Pipeline want to go across my
land but I don't want to sell, they can either raise the offer so high that I
agree to sell or they can go around me.
I'm sorry if that costs them a few million more dollars. If they can't be profitable paying me
millions of dollars for my few acres then they don't build their pipeline. Same thing goes for that hypothetical
hospital that the ex-Sessions-staffer-turned-Trump-advisor said justifies
taking private property and giving it to another for the profit of the
other. If you want to build a hospital
on my land, you need to pay my price – no matter what my price is – or build
your hospital somewhere else. Healthcare
is not yet a necessary government service in this country.
If I want to build a downtown deli but I can only be
profitable if that prime downtown location, offered for a million dollars, can
be had for a thousand dollars, then I just can't be profitable and I won't get
to open my downtown deli. I can't expect
the city to simply take the million dollar property and give it to me.
There was a time in this country (or at least portrayals on
old western movies of a time) when someone might get word the railroad was
coming through an area. They might go in
early and buy up land all over the area at pre-railroad prices and sell it to
the railroad at higher prices, making a great profit. Today, those big corporations have found a
way to make sure they never have to pay those elevated prices. They simply get government to force the sale
at values decided upon by the government and the corporation. It's a hell of a deal - if you're the
benefactor of such Eminent Abuse.
So, yes, I do support the Keystone Pipeline and I am against
using eminent domain to deliver it or to try to guarantee its success. Now, if you want me to look it up, I can, but then the burn will be even worse for you because I will, I firmly believe, find plenty of writings from the Founders to backup everything I said here.
