The First Case of Eminent Domain in the Bible
(The government has been stealing private land for Many Years! It's not a new thing.)
David Wilbur Johnson's Land Lecture 11 is on Eminent Domain.
The power to take private property for public use by the state, municipalities, and private persons or corporations authorized to exercise functions of public character.
In the United States, the power of eminent domain is founded in both the federal (Fifth Amendment) and state constitutions. The Constitution limits the power to taking for a public purpose and prohibits the exercise of the power of eminent domain without just compensation to the owners of the property which is taken. The process of exercising the power of eminent domain is commonly referred to as "condemnation" or "expropriation".
The right of eminent domain is the right of the state, through its regular organization, to reassert, either temporarily or permanently, its dominion over any portion of the soil of the state on account of public exigency and for the public good. Thus, in time of war or insurrection, the proper authorities may possess and hold any part of the territory of the state for the common safety; and in time of peace the legislature may authorize the appropriation of the same to public purposes, such as the opening of roads, construction of defenses, or providing channels for trade or travel. Eminent domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity. It gives a right to resume the possession of the property in the manner directed by the constitution and the laws of the state, whenever the public interest requires it.
He states, If the State or United States never had "sert", how can they "re-assert" their right to the land by eminent domain.
That's the whole point. If the United States never had rights to your land's possession, thus cannot re-assert their right to possess your land through eminent domain.
Condemnation is the process or act of taking property.
United States Code, annotated.
Part that addresses the United States Constitution:
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 - Admission of New States of the Union.
#1 Conditions of Admission
Brittle v. People 2 NEB 198 1872)
# 33 Eminent Domain
Eminent Domain of Texas 1857, 8th opinion of Attorney General # 334
#34 Equal Footing of Other States
Alabama (created by part of Georgia) United States v. Gardner, 903 F. Supp. 1394 (Nevada 1995) The Gardner's were trespassing on Public Land, grazing their cattle on it.
Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, When Public Land State is admitted to the Union, the only lands that the state gets sovereignty, proprietary title, public trust and public interest in, are those lands Congress granted to the new state, upon its admission into the Union. These new States get the Beds beneath the navigable waters up to the high-water mark, and for most of the states east of the Mississippi, it gets Section 16 in every township to defray the cost of public schools, and for states west of the Mississippi, new states get Section 16 and Section 36. Also Congress granted Dozens and Dozens of sections of land for internal improvements, public roads, and for public buildings.
Congress may have given additional lands to the Public Land States, even after the States acceptance into the United States, such as Swamp land, Desert land, but these lands must be stipulated in the Enabling Act in the State's Constitution where it was admitted into the United States.
In the case of the Original 13 States and Texas, the only lands that Texas got were those lands that were still public domain obtained from Mexico. Those lands which had already been conveyed in private ownership remained in the private ownership hands of the original patentees.
The Book: "History of Public Land Development", published by United States Printing Office Published in November 1968, Library of Congress Cat 68-62999
Page 301 there's a Direct Quote stated for the public record by Congressman Steven A. Douglass:
"We have never acted upon the principle that ownership of soil is an essential ingredient of sovereignty. The United States Government has never held one foot of land by virtue of its sovereignty. Sovereignty was not the title by which we have claimed or held one acre of our public lands. We hold the lands by virtue of the same title that an individual possesses his own estate. The Government holds its lands by deeds of conveyance." Public Record in the Congressional Globe 31st Congress, 1st session, June 26, 1850, page 848.
The United States acquired its lands from foreign governments by outright purchase, by Treaties, where the United States was the victor of wars between those foreign government and the United States, or by Land Ceded to it by the individual States. The United States never claimed any land by virtue of its Sovereignty, like European Kings.
The Constitution of the United States nor the Bill of Rights have anything to do with Eminent Domain. The 5th Amendment was brought about by France' reign of terror, and brought about the rules for Eminent Domain…. If Government is going to take Private Property, it is going to compensate the Property Owner.
The Relation Back Theory states if the title to the land comes from a foreign government, or the United States prior to the 5th amendment, or any one of the original 13 states where land was granted by other foreign governments, or the Republic of Texas prior to becoming a state, this Eminent Domain authority does not apply, as they have no Privity to the contract.
United States v. Beggerly 97-731 June 8, 1998
The United States was exercising eminent domain to acquire an island off the coast of Mississippi and coerced the Beggerly' s to sign a consent agreement, which left a burr under the saddle of the Beggerly' s. The Beggerly' s believed that the Boudreaux grant by Spanish Governor was superior to that of the United States. The land was conveyed by Spanish Crown in 1781, prior to the United States' existence, and so their claim would be superior to the United States…… The United States did issue a confirmation for a Spanish Land Grant, However, the Beggerly' s had purchased these 2 tracks of land in 1950 in a property tax sale in Jackson County, Mississippi, and so they were not the legal assigns to original title. They held land under Color of Title, and not lawful title, and, the Beggerly' s waited too long to appeal.
Does Congress have the right to enact laws to control land? Can Congress give the authority to someone else to condemn land???
When Dwight D. Eisenhower was President of the United States, 2 reports were put together on the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study for Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States. Part 1 was completed - April of 1956 and Part 2 was completed - June of 1957, with 260+ pages for each report.
Congress only has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the forts, ports and military enclaves, U.S. Custom Houses, and the U.S. Territories.
In The Digest of U.S. Supreme Court Reports, Volume 11A, on Public Lands, it says that Congress has no control over the lands. Dozens of Court Cases that also say so. If Congress has no jurisdiction over the lands, how can Congress pass an Act to U.S. exercise jurisdiction, to make all these islands off the coasts of the Mississippi, or Alabama…., and put them into the National Parks Service, when it's outside of their jurisdiction? If you read the cases where it deal with Eminent Domain and Condemnation, You'll never see a case where one has brought these issues up. One has to sit down, and look in as a spectator, looking in and see what was said, and what was done; and what wasn't said, and what wasn't done, then the pieces all start coming together…. So Congress only has jurisdiction over the Public Domain, and the District of Columbia, etc….
Obviously the legal counsel that land owners hire haven't spent the time to do their necessary research to understand the issues involved.
So, To what extent does the Sovereignty of a State extend???
In The Digest of U.S. Supreme Court Reports, Volume 12 A, on States, Territories and Possessions. Page 10 of Sub-Section 5, Sovereignty Generally.
The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission; but does it extend to those means which are employed by congress to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States? We think it demonstrable, that it does not. Those powers are not given by the people of a single state. They are given by the people of the United States, to a government whose laws, made in pursuance of the constitution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single state cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them.
McCulloch v. State, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
If Title to land came from a previous foreign government, (Republic of Texas, Spain, Mexico) the sovereignty of a state cannot claim jurisdiction, as the title came from before the state existed, so is not a party in privity. Nor does the State give U.S. Congress the State's permission to sell land that's in the State's Public Domain. So this argument does not hold water, that the U.S. holds jurisdiction to land, already ceded into private hands.
In The Digest of U.S. Supreme Court Reports, Volume 11A, Public Lands, Page 188, Sub-section 246 : and as a rule of construction, in order to promote the intention.
We do not perceive any sound reason for holding that the word ‘heirs' in a patent for an invention should be regarded as a definition of the extent of the patentee's own interest in the patent. There is nothing technical in the word as used. It indicates persons who are to have the benefit in the event of death, but the absolute character of the interest of the patentee is not attributable to it. The words in the statute, ‘the patentee his heirs or assigns,’ whether construed *223 according **286 to the rules of grammar or to the evident intent of congress, mean ‘the patentee or his heirs or assigns.’ They comprehend the legal representatives, assignees in law and assignees in fact, and the phraseology raises no limitation in the sense of the strict common-law rule applied to realty.De la Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Featherstone, 147 U.S. 209 (1893)
13 S.Ct. 283, 37 L.Ed. 138