Redpill me on the the China land

>that's with almost all countries
Not the United States.
It's why the pipe line hasn't gone through.

>>n the United States, private property is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution from seizure by the government without "just compensation".

Imminent domain is something Trump loves to bring up. Compensation can be bypassed when acting on it.

They have a lot of Chinese.

Eminent domain you fucktard.

Except Trump never argued for taking land without proper compensation. And it's eminent domain you fucking idiot.

If it isn't just they can't take
How hard is this to understand?
Even the courts or siding with the land owners.

>>The constitutionally required "just compensation" in partial takings is usually measured by fair market value of the part taken, plus severance damages (the diminution in value of the property retained by the owner [remainder] when only a part of the subject property is taken). Where a partial taking provides economic benefits specific to the remainder, those must be deducted, typically from severance damages

the point is, all land in the united states can be appropriated as long as the government is willing to pay a monetary amount for it. there is literally no land in the US that is owned by it's citizen that the US cannot legally purchase with money. an exception may be for reservations but im not familiar with US law in that regard. but for you're typical citizen, all land is fair game for the government.

in china RIGHT NOW
ama

>there is literally no land in the US that is owned by it's citizen that the US cannot legally purchase with money. an exception may be for reservations but im not familiar with US law in that regard.
You just contradicted yourself
>but for you're typical citizen, all land is fair game for the government.
Tell that to the cowboys at Bundy Ranch.

US is not special just because you have the same thing worded differently in your holy grail, bro

seriously, google pictures "China Nail Houses" and be "muh private property" "muh communists" somewhere else

@90097679
I dont talk to pooskin slavs

Attached: 15257544471.jpg (364x444, 22K)

you are dumb. i said for the typical citizen, eminent domain supersedes property rights, except in the case of reservations, as individual treaties negotiated with the federal government may have a clause that makes reservations an exception. again, i do not know, im not familiar with US law in that regard.

>>Tell that to the cowboys at Bundy Ranch.

Bundy was not a eminent domain issue. it was the Bundy clan grazing on federally owned lands while he refused to pay grazing fees.

Apologize to Pooshkin NOW

Attached: aspushkin.jpg (758x800, 136K)

操你妈

>the government owns all the land
>well not all of it
Retard alert
>Bundy was not a eminent domain issue. it was the Bundy clan grazing on federally owned lands while he refused to pay grazing fees.
And he won

I apologize solemnly. Russians are an elevated and superior race

>US is not special just because you have the same thing worded differently
No chéngguǎn to beat up anyone.

its full of chinese, dont go there

yes user, when Europeans arrived from Europe to settle in what is now the united states of america there were certain aboriginals living on the land. as the united states became a nation of its own the united states had to negotiate with certain tribes in exchange for safe passage and an end to hostilities. some of those treaties signed with the aboriginals are still in force today and may contain language that grants them special land rights. land rights that your typical american does not have.

>>The term "Severance Damages" is the award given to the land owner for expropriation of the property.[16] American courts have held that the preferred measure of "just compensation" is "fair market value," i.e., the price that a willing but unpressured buyer would pay a willing but unpressured seller in a voluntary transaction, with both parties fully informed of the property's good and bad features.[17] Also, this approach takes into account the property's highest and best use (i.e., its most profitable use), which is not necessarily its current use or the use mandated by current zoning if there is a reasonable probability of zone change.

any property owned by a typical american can be legally appropriated by any level of government as long as 'just compensation' is paid, typically a fair market value with a 'public use' benefit.
uh i don't care if he won. it has nothing to do with the topic of eminent domain. as i clearly stated the bundy issue had nothing to do with eminent domain.

>they own all the land
>not all of it
You act like treaties with Native Americans have never been broken.
>hasn't seen all the problems the government is having for trying to take land for the pipeline with senators and other lawmakers siding with the people.
Texas can still hang horse thieves legally but they dont do it even if it's still in their law books.

m.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2024889/chinese-developers-host-banquet-fit-15000-relocated-villagers

>Compensation deal means relocated villagers get new apartments worth about 10 million yuan each

>use bamboo instead of rebar

Attached: jiangsu-new-constructed-apartment-building-uses-bamboo-instead-of-steel-rebar.jpg (275x490, 18K)

>>You act like treaties with Native Americans have never been broken.

like i said i'm not familiar with US law or treaties signed with your aboriginals. i said they may contain language that grants them special land rights or they may not. suffice to say my main point. Eminent Domain supersedes typical property rights of american citizens.

if the federal government wants to weather the shitstorm, they can legally appropriate all the land for a pipeline as long as they can afford the fair market value and prove that it is in the public's interest. if the pipeline runs through property that is of high value, it is counterproductive because the value of the land needed to build the pipeline may cost more then the future benefits of a pipeline.

Based Chinese best asian ally in Europe since 200AD

They are basically Dystopia Cyberpunk Capitalistic Chinese Style Communism, leading the future ideology and technology in the future and finishing off entire evil white population to save the human race

also, Texas will not hang horse thieves even though they have a law in the books because they know it would not stand a constitutional challenge. sodomy is illegal in florida, when was the last time someone was charged with sodomy? some states are just too fucking lazy to clean up some laws. they know it wouldn't stand a constitutional challenge. eminent domain however has set precedent, it is a valid and often used power.

They can also legally kill all illegal non-Americans in the United States but I dont think that's gonna happen

i have no idea how this statement is relevant to the response i supplied.

>Texas will not hang horse thieves even though they have a law in the books because they know it would not stand a constitutional challenge.
It just legally let go someone for killing a prostitute because she took his money and didn't put out so it was stealing he had the right to get it back and executed foreign nationals even with the American government telling them not too.
Your argument isn't holding up.
>eminent domain however has set precedent, it is a valid and often used power.
If that's the case why hasn't the government used it to start their oil pipeline?

That's because you have no argument to it so you dismiss it.
All illegal foreign nationals are considered a possible threat to the government.

i don't understand your argument. what does that have to do with eminent domain?

i just told you why. the cost of acquiring all the land to build the pipeline may exceed the benefits of the pipeline. there is also a clause in eminent domain that it must be

>>"purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

the pipeline is arguably for the benefit of a private company. it would be the federal governments burden to prove it is to the benefit of the general public. but make no mistake. if the feds really wanted that pipeline in the national interest they can just pay everyone the FMV and appropriate it.

quote me the law

>Redpill me

Attached: images.png (251x201, 7K)

>i don't understand your argument. what does that have to do with eminent domain?
It has to do with laws which you think are absolute and never challenged.
>if the feds really wanted that pipeline in the national interest they can just pay everyone the FMV and appropriate it
Thanks for proving my point.
>it can
But it wont
No chéngguǎn to make anyone comply.

congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1927
And mane core

eminent domain has been challenged before but it's never lost. it's power is accepted and used.

>>Thanks for proving my point.

oookay, so we agree that the american governments right to appropriation supersedes property rights. with one unknown caveat, Indian reservations, as i'm unfamiliar with their unique status in America.

you're going to have to provide me with the section and subsection. i don't feel like reading the whole thing just for Jow Forums trolls.

>eminent domain has been challenged before but it's never lost. it's power is accepted and used.
Lies won't get you anywhere.
Kelo v. City of New London
>oookay, so we agree that the american governments right to appropriation supersedes property rights. with one unknown caveat, Indian reservations
They have the right but the law isn't absolute like you seem to think.
I have the right to kill a trespassers doesn't mean I should.

>>The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) *affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain*, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5–4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad.

up actually linked a case that upheld the power of eminent domain.

>>They have the right but the law isn't absolute like you seem to think.
I have the right to kill a trespassers doesn't mean I should.

if the law granted to you says you can kill trespassers indiscriminately, you can.

>spoon feed me
No

The Defend America act covers all threats and even has a kill list known as a Disposition Matrix.

i ctrl-f foreign. nothing in that law states that

>>All illegal foreign nationals are considered a possible threat to the government.

you made the claim, provide the proper citation.

Oops
nbcnews.com/id/11280106/ns/us_news-life/t/-year-old-tenant-wins-eminent-domain-case/

>The Defend America act
CTRL F 'disposition matrix' results = 0

try again.

try again user

>>A jury decided that a Georgia hospital is going to have to pay nearly five times what it offered if it wants to condemn a rental house where a frail, 93-year-old woman has lived for nearly three decades.

the 'Fair Market Value' clause was not satisfied. they can appropriate it if they paid 5 times what they originally offered.

a) aliens who are anarchists;
(b) aliens who advise, advocate, or teach, or who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, society, or group, that advises, advocates, or teaches opposition to all organized government;
(c) aliens who believe in, advise, advocate, or teach, or who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, association, society, or group, that believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches:
(1) the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or
(2) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, or
(4) sabotage;

It's a eminent domain case the state lost.
You're grasping at straws
(d) aliens who write, publish, or cause to be written or published, or who knowingly circulate, distribute, print, or display, or knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, printed, or displayed, or knowingly have in their possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, or display any written or printed matter, advising, advocating, or teaching opposition to all government, or advising, advocating, or teaching:
(1) the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or
(2) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers of the Government of the United States or of any other government, or
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, or
(4) sabotage;
(e) aliens who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, association, society, or group, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, or display, any written or printed matter of the character in subdivision (d).

>>>All illegal foreign nationals are considered a possible threat to the government.

is what you stated.

your response narrows the definition substantially.

no user, the law is still valid, it was not struck down as unconstitutional. what did happen was that if they have offered her actual Fair Market Value, 5 times their original offer, then the government would have appropriated the land.

eminent domain has restrictions, paying 'just compensation' is one of them.

well i need to sleep, i hope you became less retarded after this conversation.

Key words
>possible threat
You probably dont know about the 1920 anarchist bombings and the wall street bombing. Mostly by foreigners.
With the laws made in reaction to them

>i hope you became less retarded after this conversation.
Pot calling the kettle black idiom
You're the one that's moving the goal posts after your argument was destroyed.
>so we agree that the american governments right to appropriation supersedes property rights.
And
>eminent domain has been challenged before but it's never lost.
Keep up the damage control