A response to my eminent domain question.

It's the only one so far. Let's be generous and assume the others haven't gotten around to it yet. But my generosity has limits, you other three.

Hi John,

Nobody has ever asked me this, so this is off the cuff.

As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), the only
statement in the U.S. Constitution related to eminent
domain is the Fifth Amendment provision requiring
"just compensation."

My initial question is, How can eminent domain ever be
"just?" In eminent domain proceedings, the State first offers
to buy the property from the owner. Eminient [sic] domain
is only resorted to when the property owner does not feel
that the price offered by the State is just. From the
perspective of the owner, eminent domain is always unjust,
or else the owner would have accepted the offer of the State.

In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the
principles of English Law, the related term "compulsory purchase"
is more commonly used. This sounds like the "initiation of force"
which Libertarians pledge to oppose.

(In my opinion, the pledge which members of the LP are required
to sign logically requires members to be anarchists.)

I suspect that if the U.S. Constitution had deprived the states
of the power of eminient domain, its ratification might have
been jeopardized, but I would support the amendment you
describe.

Thanks for your interest. I appreciate being given the opportunity
to think through the issues.
--

Kevin Craig
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives
7th District, Missouri
P.O. Box 179
Powersite. MO 65731
417.334-8927
417.339-4417 (fax)
www.KevinCraig.US