Yup! He dragged Louisiana kicking and screaming into the 20th century. He had his dark side, but that was bush league when compared with our current bumper crop of duly elected brigands and thieves.

Yes.
That would come under my own personal favorite excuse: "I have 4 children and you don't have any, therefore the REAL future belongs to me." (Context dropping and concept swapping.)

A good point, and that could be some of the argument in favor, but if they can go around, and that is "too much trouble' then not one I would agree with.

Thank you, sir. I think you have hit the nail on the head here.I also am not on-board with their base reason, but I find that is irrelevant in the basic fact it seems tb be individual rights vs govt or business. Business needs to be able to adapt to changing circumstances, and I also bet they saw all the other landowners who did agree to sell and decided they had a perfect opportunity to "stand up" but that does not alter the case. Just makes it more distasteful to defend it.

Essentially the argument, but you should add "I know better how to use this for the public good then you do" which is almost always present in the discussion, even if shaded.

Again, true.

Exactly. I'm with you there , Dino.

I agree with you, I am not one to allow state to trump individual. If anything define in very detailed circumstances, not the general "public good". Usually I see that excuse used by someone who has no good planned for the public, only themselves.

Maybe. This is an interesting discussion as it seems there are several opinions on how we got to where the govt can just take your land. I know Deleware has been the place of choice (along with North Dakota) as an LLC haven for shell companies, because you can make one with almost no definition or disclosure. DuPont set that up in Del a long time ago and they have made a lot of money registering anyone and anything.

Was that part of that? I thought I read then it was a developer wanting to renovate along the waterfront. I will revisit it. Walmart definitely does not fall into "public need". IMHO.

I must respectfully disagree on the point of tying someones rights to their political view. I still would not care if the dude wanted to let his property become a huge wetland viewing park or whatever. I do not believe that eminent domain is valid in this case. I do not see that a private company can use it, nor do I see anything in what I have looked at, that says the state ever undertook condemnation proceedings, the Company has done all the filings. a "Major productive undertaking" does not meet the "immediate public needs" test for condemning someones property. I would also say that we would need to be able to do some data gathering to see just how many pipelines have been taking peoples property over the years if it is as indicated. Unless it is a public water line, I do not see a case where any oil or gas company would qualify for eminent domain. But that is just my point of view. How would this fit if the EPA wanted their land to be set aside a wildlands or something (which they have done) and told them they could not farm it? That could still be said to "meet a public good". Eminent Domain is looting in my book unless for a versy specific set of reasons (like a power line that cannot go any other way, a telephone cable or a water line) and even then, I would say they would have a tough time convincing me they cannot change their route. I do not agree on a major productive undertaking taking away my right to my property.

It later occurred to me that the EPA belongs in the above list.
I'm sure that's true of some other of our now bloated big government's alphabet soup of agencies.

Walmart New London, CT, began a serious trample of individual property rights. BTW, it is a weed-filled lot now.

This case is not about "selling of authority". The power of eminent domain for pipeline rights of way is well established in law. The reason for opposing eminent domain in principle, regardless of current legality, is because it is anti-private property rights; it is not about whether or not the land is taken for a "public project", which is a collectivist premise.

The viro ideology is not an "angle"; it is a fundamental assault on civilization, including all of our rights, and is central to this story because Botsford has made it central, both in his own mind and in a public display.

Botsford doesn't just want his land left as it is. He is a viro preservationist who hates the industry for drilling for oil anywhere. He is renting some of his land for farming and the rest is in a government "conservation" program. The pipeline is an underground easement that does not affect farming, or doing nothing -- ironically, it only prevents development over the right of way, seeming to be an ideal way for a preservationist to be paid to do nothing on his land. But he doesn't want a pipeline anywhere on or under the surface of the earth. He is an anti-industry activist using government "wetland" regulatory takings to try to stop the pipeline on other land. He is aligned with Indian tribalist activists and wants excess legal fund donations to go to "Plains Justice" and "Honor the Earth". He does not oppose eminent domain, he wants his viro beliefs to make him exempt from it because he hates the pipeline company.

Viros often own property -- from primitive camps to mansions -- but oppose private property rights. They see their own "approved" use of private property as more of a feudalist entitlement, the opposite of rights. Their ideology is not just "politics". Atlas Shruged is not about supporting these people in the name of subjectivist "libertarianism".

Well, I think the Supreme Court was wrong on the
New London, Conn. (And on Plessy vs. Ferg-
uson). But what we need is a Constitutional a-
mendment abolishing eminent domain nationwide.

Seems to me too many have some cause that's far greater and grander than the rights of the individual in this country.
I was not supposed to be that way.
But after the Founding Fathers came the canals, the railroads, automobile super highways, shopping centers and, yes, now pipelines.

This reminds me of a personal experience I had with how my brother took my very private and exclusive daughter-to-daughter covenant away from me.
It goes something like this:
"I know that it is yours BUT I don't like that."
"I have been eyeing this up for a long time."
"You have enough and you don't live near here anyway."
"Besides, I have more money, prestige and power than you do, therefore I can do what I want to you and by the time I am done playing my games, you won't have anything left anyway therefore: GIVE UP NOW!"
This won't end well for the landowners (sadly).

While I cannot agree with the reason for their hold out, their right to do it is constitutionally perfectly clear. I don't think you're wrong, Nick. Particularly since it was indicated that they could "go around" the landowners. It will probably cost them more than the $50K they are offering, so it likely all boils down to money.

I agree, not giving money to people that hate us (althoughChina does now) is a good step.

Moving oil via rail car is inherently dangerous- I'd argue that it is in the public interest to bury a pipeline.

For the greater good, it also lowers oil prices.

The Kingfish

The pipeline project is a major productive economic undertaking, not "looting on a grand scale" based on someone who happened to incorporate in Delaware and paying off officials in North Dakota. It has been fought, as is well known, because the viros are trying to shut down energy production everywhere they can in their attack on civilization as such. The company didn't "somehow" obtain the authority to use eminent domain (which is a government authority, not a "right"), it has been an established use for pipeline easements for a long time. This isn't a recently discovered abrogation of property rights, and property rights are not what the viros are fighting for. They exploit property rights and the controversy over Kelo to further their own anti-property rights agenda.

We don't "set the base reason aside"; the context cannot be dropped. Focusing on property rights of viros while ignoring what they are doing is like the "libertarians" who, missing the entire philosophical point, cynically savaged and sneered at Ayn Rand for praising the achievement of the Apollo flight to the moon and denouncing the "private" human trash hippies at Woodstock for what they were.

Socialism pure and simple and you are not wrong, 4 th amendment you know.

The pipeline is part of the national defense strategy. Required for protection from agrressors. Done!