If you're gonna cheat, at least make the stories believable....

[mtcookson]

There are always so many variables in land ownership, I don't think the opportunity for all to have the same equal chance will ever happen, no matter how it is done. There will always be people who will have more than others.

That actually makes it fair... if a person is able to perform work and use his earnings to purchase a ton of land, more than others, that is fair as they worked to do it. If they forcefully take the land or in some way violate a person's rights to get the land that is not fair and should be punished by the government. If the government tries to make everyone have equal land that is not fair and the politicians should be punished. Simple.

[readyaimduck]

   

That actually makes it fair... if a person is able to perform work and use his earnings to purchase a ton of land, more than others, that is fair as they worked to do it. If they forcefully take the land or in some way violate a person's rights to get the land that is not fair and should be punished by the government. If the government tries to make everyone have equal land that is not fair and the politicians should be punished. Simple.

With that statement, I agree.  How about that "eminent domain" clause?  I believe that has been overused and for personal gains.
ready...(edited)

[mtcookson]

How about that "eminent domain" clause?  I believe that has been overused and for personal gains.

First, just because this is part of the reason why that clause (and so many others) is a problem, I'd like to make it clear that the Supreme Court has absolutely NO Constitutional power whatsoever to "interpret" the Constitution. So called conservatives/republicans are guilty of saying the SCOTUS has interpretation powers when it absolutely does not.

As far as the clause, if the government(s) would simply do their job and follow the Constitution as it is written, and it is written in perfectly crystal clear, perfectly understandable English... they would understand without any doubt that it CLEARLY says public use with just compensation. If the land is being used for anything other than public use, like for instance parks, roads, etc., or they take the the land and give it to a private individual or business, that is absolutely, clearly, without a doubt unconstitutional. The politicians that violate that clause should, at an absolute minimum, be punished for perjury as it is a clear violation of their oath but should also be punished as laid out in U.S.C. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 (18 USC 241, 18 USC 242) where, if there are two or more conspiring to or doing so, can be fined not more than $10,000 and/or imprisoned not more than 10 years or if it is just one person not more than $1,000 and/or not more than 1 year imprisonment.

[Patriot]

Sadly, however, the SCOTUS long ago adopted a policy (however unconstitutional the results) of relying on stare decicis.  That is an almost absolute reliance on  the infallibility of prior court decisions RATHER than weighing the issues in a case individually against the clear meaning of the Constitution.  The recent Kelo v New London decision essentially made the taking of private property and giving it to a private developer proper use of eminent domain if the 'transfer' would result in development that generates higher property tax revenues for government.  On its face, plainly unconstitutional (no public use of the taken property), in reality a death blow to private property rights as now the simple increase in value and taxes were deemed 'public use'.   And stare decisis will perpetuate the travesty in future cases.

Even more troublesome is the fact that average citizens are either too disengaged or too ignorant to see it at all.

[Varmit]

Seeing as how private land ownership is a major indicator of wealth, and the goal of our government is to redistribute that wealth, this should come as no surprise.  Besides if you eliminate private ownership of land then the occupants of that land have no ground to stand on when the government tells them to move.  Can you say Agenda 21 boys and girls?

[Patriot]

...Can you say Agenda 21 boys and girls?

Ahhh, Marxism by any other name.  Agenda 21 is what the Communist Manifesto looks like when you varnish it real well, polish it,  & wrap it in modern Progressive language.  Elitist crony's operating to their personal advantage while oppressing opportunity for other, lesser, beings.  All in the name of saving the world.  After all, they know what's best.

The failures (and dangers) of Socialism & Communism aren't taught in government schools any more, are they?  Wait, a survey last week showed that 55% of Demoncrats and 23% of Republicans have a favorable view of socialism (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-53-percent-democrats-have-positive-image-socialism).  

We've come a long way Mrs. Robinson.