The first week of class, we were introduced to several hot button topics that we deal with every day. One of those was the issue of eminent domain.
A current, real world example of this is along the border of Texas with Mexico.
The city of Eagle Pass, Texas is currently in the midst of a lawsuit with the federal government over who has the right to control property. The city of Eagle Pass "legally" has the right to govern it's own community under state and federal law but the issue of eminent domain allows the federal government, in this case, to cease city land if they find it necessary to the greater good.
The greater good is a border fence, on the US side of the border between the United States and Mexico in areas with easy access to illegal crossing.
My question is, do you believe that the government should have the right to take city or even private property (like in Overton) in order to do what it believes is the "greater good"?
23 comments:
Carleen DeArmon Period 3
♥
Government
The government should not be allowed to take away people's property for the "greater good" unless they can prove that this wall they want to build will prove to be for the greater good and effective in the future. As far as I am concerned, the Founding Fathers promised us Life, Liberty, and Property in the constitution, and the government has no right to take from people what is rightfully theirs unless they are willing to foot the bill for a new place to live AND can prove that what they are doing will ultimately benefit the country in the long run.
So far, no one can give substantial proof that this border-wall will solve anything, so no, they have no right to do what they are trying to do.
In a way i don't think they shoule be able to do it becaouse who's to say what the "greater good" is. But also if they offer you a really good deal and its something you can work with than take it because if your too stuborn to a deal even when house isn't worth that much and thier even offering you more than that then somethings wrong. About a year ago i lived in the overton area actually so i can relate to those people over there because we were one of the people Mcdougal tried to pull eminent domain on. He was doing some things that shouldn't have been done legally.
I think the government should only be allowed to take these people's property if they are fully reimbursed for it and given help in finding a new home. If the property owners do not agree with the reasons behind their forced movement, or simply wish to keep their home, There should be some sort of reward to provide incentive for them to move quickly and quietly... Some of the homes being torn down may have been built by an owner's family many generations before, thus giving the house irreplacable sentimental value.
There is really no easy solution to this problem, and as Carleen said, who's to say their displacement won't just be for nothing in the end?
Since we as American citizens are entitled to various rights as stated in the constitution as in our just right to own property (Life, Liberty, and Property). The threat to seize the property for the "greater good" is a contradiction to what our constitution entails.
I agree with past posters on the fact that the government should not be able to take away property unless there is a largely justifiable reason to do so. Also a fair amount of compensation should be given as well; money can only make up for so much and you can’t pay people with memories. The issue of the “greater good” is more of an opinion rather than a fact and opinions are usually debated due to the fast that they vary from person to person. The constitutionality of this is very blurry and unjustified and therefore should be reviewed by the Supreme Court before they even think of trying to take peoples property.
Sarah Rock
6th period
Doesn't the Constitution state that we as Americans are entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property? So, the government taking what is rightfully ours without our consent is unconstitutional, is it not? They really don't have any right to take our property, even if they do believe it is for the 'greater good'. What if the government is wrong and it turns out that they put a lot of people out of their homes for no reason at all?
I agree with Carleen. Private property belongs to the owner unless there is proof that the wall is going to be used for a good purpose. If the people aren't willing to move and find a new residence then the government shouldn't even bother trying to ontain the land for their wall.
Sarah Lambert
period 4 Human Geography
9th grade
Peter Young
6th
The entire idea of a Fence of America is completely stupid. Not only is this ridiculous attempt to imitate China stupid, but the border between the United States and Mexico is over 2100 miles long, and the fence that Bush plans to build is only 900 miles long. What would that accomplish?, besides making illegal immigrants walk a longer distance to get into this country.
Since the city owns the land, that property should belong to the city, not the government. United States citizens are entitled to private property, under the belief that they will invest in it and improve it. The federal government should not have the right to come in after improvement and development and take the land.
no i do not think they should be allowed to seize peoples propertys and build this wall. I dont think they should because some people have a different meaning of the greater good. In the constitution they talk about life, liberty, and property. If the person actully owns that land there is no way they should be allowed to make them to relocate. I look at in this view because my dad grew up in overton and when we are over there he says it is so different and child hood memories are gone. I know overton was getting bad but by taring it down and building something new you are just driving these people to some other neighborhood to tear up. My dad lived in one house as a kid in overton and it is no longer there along with anyothers. When i get older i want to be able to drive around in my neighbor hood and remember the memories. The goverment should stay away from peoples propertys.
David Glasheen-3rd
The Founding Fathers promised us life, liberty and property, but they also outlined in the 5th amendment that “private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This right was recognized in 1891.
It is up to the courts to decide what "just" compensation is. It is an imperfect system, and I believe that Eminent Domain is a very easy power for the government to abuse. However, I believe that it is necessary for the government to have this tool available to them. Projects like highways and streets would be impossible without them.
As for Overton, I believe that Eminent Domain was not abused, and that the redevelopment of Overton was good for Lubbock, the economy, and Texas Tech.
If the government didn't have the right to take city or even private property to do what it believes is the "greater good", what kind of authority would it have? Referring back to Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, would denying the government this right, be reverting direct and unnecessary power straight back to the people? I realize I say this with an outsider's perspective: if it were my house being torn town in order to install a border fence, I would most likely have a much different opinion. But then again, isn't that how it is for all of us? On a macro scale, the idea of eminent domain sounds great, but on a micro and more personal level, I think we would probably all be against it. It seems so hard to judge without having had it happen to me. I feel like I cannot rightfully argue either way.
Tara Viswanathan
2nd Period
Landon Henderson
Pd. 4
Grade 9
I think that is bad that the government takes people's porperty for the greater good. That preson bought that land with his/her own money. Unless there is a REALLY good reason they sould not even think about it.
Abigail Ham
4th period
9th grade
UH no. The government doesn't OWN private property because SOMEONE ELSE BOUGHT IT. "Greater good," my foot. They should at least try to get some sort of consent from the owner of the land, then it would at least be legal.
As for the giant wall on the border, there is no way it will completely stop illegal immigrants from hopping on over. Walls are built to be scaled! Unless the government starts funding the cloning of giant fire-breathing pterodactyls that eat anyone that comes near it (That's Mr. Perkin's idea, not mine. Got to love Mr. Perkins.) and build a massive lava moat in front of the wall, then I don't think the wall is going to do much but challenge the dare-devils out there outside of the loop. HEY, THERE'S A BIG WALL, LET'S GO CLIMB IT! Nope, not going to be extremely effective.
Ashely Ambrosio
Human Geography
4th
NO!!! The government doesn't have the right to take away anyones property no matter what they thing is the "greater good" or not! I really don't the wall is going to keep anyone out. No matter what our government says is right and wrong and who is or isn't allowed in our country, people are still going do disobey the laws and come into our country illegally. So the wall might keep people out temporarily but not for long.
Anjalie Schlaeppi, 6th period
Well, I don't really know, but i'm going to base my argument on the constitution (easy way I know, but...).
So the constitution promesses to people Life, Liberty and Property. Property. So I gess it is anticonstitutional that the governement take people's house to bilt a "border-fence". Or, if they do so, they should provide them a house with the same characteristics.
So if the constitution, on what this contry is based on, is in contradiction with what the government is going, well I guess wath the government is going is wrong.
And I'm not really for walls between countries, "lets be all safe of all thoses bad people and build a wall!". You're not going to stop them with a wall. Walls don't work. Look in Irak. Look what happend in Berlin.
The government should be allowed to reposses property if it is imperative to the growth, development, and safety of the nation. As long as they reimburse the property owner the amount their property was worth, it's pretty fair. Although this piece of property does belong to the person who bought it, a new situation could have arisen after the purchase. For example, a family may have owned property on the border between Mexico and Texas for decades, and now suddenly a fence needs to be built. It wasn't imperative before, but now to achieve the government's plan this piece of property needs to move over to the hands of the government. The constitution doesn't specify what kind of property the founding fathers promised us. I'm sure they didn't promise every citizen the right to own the land on which the White House is built, seeing as how that is physically impossible. So, these people are being compensated and they will be able to find another piece of property. I don't think this really infringes on constitutional rights too much, as long as it's done fairly.
Kayleigh Robertson
6th period
They should not be able to take away those peoples property. The constitution says that we are entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property; so it's not right. They better have something that will benefit the greater good if they're taking away propery from people that need it.
I believe if the government says it is truly for the "greater good" then they should be allowed to take property. Our government is there for a reason and I don’t think we should question them, especially in this situation. However, I do realize that if someone was taking away my home I might change my tune. I honestly can't completely argue either way, but as of now that’s what I think.
The government shouldn't be able to take away thier property!!! And there is not a way to define "the greater good" anyway, so what's to stop them from taking over everything? What about all those people who live in Eagle Pass? What would thier life be like after the government takes thier community? It would be just as easy to build the fence a quarter of a mile away and you wouldn't be putting people out on the streets. The population is there legally! If they give them money to move, it might be diiferent, but still not fair. I wish the people of Eagle Pass much luck in thier lawsuit with the government.
Jessica Kaskie
Human Geography
Period 4
If'n yer a real patriot, 'n' you love yer country, you gotta make some sacrifices, ya hear, sonny? 'Cuz if'n you ain't gonna let them government guys do their job, you kin jus' git yerself outta my America. The government gotta do wut the government gotta do. 'N' hey, it's fer the Greater Good.
(all: The Greater Good.)
'Cuz if'n they don't take the land to seal up our borders real nice 'n' tight, we'll be knee-deep in dog muck, thieving kids, and crusty jugglers.
(all: Crusty jugglers.)
'N' no real patriot would ever put their private property nonsense in front of the Greater Good...
(all: The Greater Good.)
...if'n he's a real patriot. 'N' if'n you ain't a real patriot, sonny, move to Russia or sumthin. We don't serve yer kind here, ya hear?
Yeah, Hot Fuzz/hick accent mash-ups aside, eminent domain is probably necessary in some cases. Like in building bypasses. "You've got to build bypasses," as it was so eloquently stated in H2G2 by Mr. Prosser, just moments before the destruction of the planet. Arthur Dent's house was kind of in the way of things, and he could just move, right? [SPOILER ALERT: IF YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF EARTH YET, PLEASE DO NOT READ ON] But where do you draw the line, then? The Vogons blow up Earth shortly thereafter to clear a path for a hyperspatial express route, which is yet another apposite situation on the topic of eminent domain. Would you want Earth to be blown up for some express route? Yes? Then you're a creep. No? But to some people, losing a long-time family home is like losing the world, so you're a creep. Catch-22! But isn't everything like that?
It's all far too controversial and I'm far too indecisive to choose one side of the fence and stick to it, so I'll just keep writing comments about good books and good movies, thinly-veiled as political commentary.
Well first of all, this wall is going to be built by none other than illegal immigrants, thats already very hypocritical. And how are we going to pay these illegal immigrants severely garnished wages through our 3 trillion dollar debt? Where does the government get off seizing land by calling it the "greater good" to spend millions of dollars on building a wall that might not even help? And who decides what is the greater good? Is the war in Iraq for this "greater good", or is tearing up the Artic Reserve to drill for petty amounts of oil for this "greater good", is switching to ethanol rather than fossil fuels (which solves no problems as manurfacturing and transporting ethanol and the corn it is derived from uses just as much fossil fuel as ethanol it produces) going to support this "greater good". As far as im conscerned the greater good has been lost in a sea of greed, ignorance, and stupidity. So no, it is absolutely not okay for our government (which is in place soley to protect our rights) to steal land from anyone to do anything.
If they'd like to purchase the land, with the owners consent i am completely okay with that.
Grant Curry
Human Geography AP
4th Period
9th Grade
As I see it the government should not be allowed to take people's property for the "greater good" without being certain that it is beneficial and it will work. If the government took property because they say it's for the best and later find out it didn't solve the problem, then it was for nothing.
The "greater good" is subjective, and as that, should be treated with the utmost care. While some may see the wall as part of achieving the best for the future, others may not, and those may never be convinced. It is impossible to prove, beyond doubt, that something is for the "greater good", because it will always harm certain groups, certain people. Though in the long run, the benefits might outweigh the consequences, no definite proof can be provided. Thus, when government claims it has the right to do something for the "greater good", all it is asserting is that it has the right to do the latter for ITS OWN greater good, or at least, for that which it BELIEVES to be the greater good. Without certainty, it will be putting those affected at risk, simply for that hunch.
No one man, one community, or one government can claim to know the greater good for something, since no one man, no one community, no one government can see the future or its circumstances. All one can do is make guesses, and desperately clutch at those being correct.
Keti Tsereteli
Grade 10
Period 4
Human Geography
Post a Comment