Here's a Hoover Institute thing including Epstein.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzBU8QbkouM

They're debating what a national emergency is. Not whether it's a valid Fifth Amendment taking. And then there's this interlude between Yoo and Epstein, talking about standing. The moderator brings up a Texas land owner, and whether that Texas land owner has standing. They conclude that he does, and then there's this:

Yoo: If they pay just compensation, he doesn't have a gripe.

Epstein: Yes, but of course, you know Trump, he'll never do that.

Yoo: He's a New York real estate developer, he loves eminent domain.

There you go. It's at about the 7:26 mark. If he pays just compensation, Epstein agrees that the ranch owner doesn't have a gripe.

If you want to put it in the context of what I'm saying, the real point that they are grappling with is this: yes, the Fifth Amendment allows takings for just compensation, but maybe Trump hasn't been authorized by Congress to engage in a Fifth Amendment taking. That goes back to the whole "emergency powers" argument. If he doesn't have the emergency power to do this, then the whole thing is moot ... he can't reallocate the funds. If he does have the emergency power, then we're back to a Fifth Amendment taking to get the property ... public purpose and just compensation.

Just after that set of remarks, Epstein agrees that the whole national emergency thing is murky. As it probably should be. You can't anticipate and define clearly what a national emergency is, because there's no way to think of everything that might happen.

By the way, Cindy, they do talk about whether the House of Representatives has standing, or who has standing. Not that I'd trust Yoo's opinion, because he has a rather obvious bias. They didn't really resolve it, but they seemed to think that the standing issue would not get in the way of a court case.

It makes sense if you think about it, Trump et. al. probably came up with the 'military version' because they didn't envision finding even more money within their existing budget to pay for the land.

By the way, I don't put to much stock in Yoo's opinions either. I've listened to 'law talk' a couple of times, which features him and Epstien. Epstein is a smart professor type, not without his biases but he's willing to say "well I think the answer is X but the court is likely to say Y and here's why..."

Yoo, on the other hand, just seems like a partisan tool. After hearing him a couple of times I find it totally unsurprising that he'd write an opinion OKing torture or anything else his president wanted.

Yoo just believes in expansive Presidential powers. He reaches a conclusion and then figures out how to justify it.

Getting back to Trump's "military taking", it probably hasn't even occurred to him that there's a difference between seizing a steel mill in a time of war and seizing a piece of property that you intend to hold forever.

In any event, there is virtually no possibility (in my judgment) that Trump could seize landowners' property and then not compensate them for it. Whatever you think of his emergency powers ... whether you think they are somewhere in the mist of the Constitution, or derive from Congressional legislation, or whatever ... the Fifth Amendment is pretty damned explicit. I cannot see, under any circumstances, five Justices saying "yes but" to the argument that a permanent taking requires just compensation.

So if Congress does not appropriate funds to justly compensate the property owners, it follows that the Executive branch cannot seize the properties per the Fifth Amendment. Is that right?

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:
So if Congress does not appropriate funds to justly compensate the property owners, it follows that the Executive branch cannot seize the properties per the Fifth Amendment. Is that right?

That should be right, with the proviso that a lawful declaration of an emergency (which is in question) might allow reallocation of already appropriated funds.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Yoo just believes in expansive Presidential powers.

I had to go over that three times to not read it as ‘You just believe in expansive Presidential powers’. I was like ‘where is he getting that idea?’

I heard on npr in the last week or two (sorry, too lazy to try to find it now) that there are (former) landowners in Texas who had their land taken for "border security" and have been waiting over a decade for the government to compensate them. The government says they will as soon as the government and the landowner agree on a price.

That's.

Just.

Wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
I heard on npr in the last week or two (sorry, too lazy to try to find it now) that there are (former) landowners in Texas who had their land taken for "border security" and have been waiting over a decade for the government to compensate them. The government says they will as soon as the government and the landowner agree on a price.

That's.

Just.

Wrong.

It's also unconstitutional. You don't need agreement. If you don't agree, the court should establish just compensation itself.

I know these cases can take a long time, but that's too long by several orders of magnitude.

(Have they filed cases, or are they just arguing with the government?)

What they said on the radio is that the government issues an order to vacate the land along with a blank check. The order goes into effect immediately, in two weeks, or whatever; but the check waits until the government and the landowner agree on the value of the land.

So, the government believes it is complying with the law by handing over a check when they seize the land.

Yes, they said that the cases have been stuck in the courts for years.

Now you're making me want to go find the item that was on the radio.

Here it is:
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/12...risk-losing-property

My apology. It may not be "eminent domain" per se, but the federal government taking land without (quickly) compensating the (former) landowners.

OK, thanks for that.

The Fifth Amendment does apply to the federal government. No federal law can supersede that. So, if there's a taking and there's no just compensation, they haven't complied with the Fifth Amendment.

And justice delayed is justice denied. Ten years is TOO DAMN LONG. A decision needs to be made, and a check needs to be cut, while the appeal is ongoing.

According to this, if the federal govern this ment uses the Declaration of Takings Act, the declaration of taking has to include, among other things, "a statement of the amount of money estimated by the acquiring authority to be just compensation for the land taken." It doesn't say whether that amount needs to be paid, pending appeal.

And, according to this, "[a]n award of compensation shall include interest payable . . . . based on the value of the property from the date of taking to the date of payment."

Apparently the Pentagon doesn't think there's an emergency on the southern border. Of course, Individual 1 knows more than the generals....

https://qz.com/1536879/trump-b...agon-tells-congress/

quote:

Originally posted by well-tempered gardener:
Apparently the Pentagon doesn't think there's an emergency on the southern border.

The pentagon and any cogent person.

quote:

Originally posted by well-tempered gardener:
So *his* shutdown is over.

I'm sure the next one will be blamed on someone else.

Exactly my thought.