3 ms·

Given the land's Native American heritage, the ranchers leaning "We were here first" argument is... really something. Private property rights are only as good

Given the land's Native American heritage, the ranchers leaning "We were here first" argument is... really something. Private property rights are only as good as the government that recognizes them. Keep in mind that the government that gives you private property rights (California in this case) also has the right to take as much of your land as they want for 'public use'. If the government wants to play hardball, it is perfectly reasonable for them to build a road across the land and open it to the public. You can't stop them, your only recourse is to argue how much they owe you for doing it.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
That is absolutely not true. There are many restrictions on eminent domain. We live in a society of laws, not a feudal one where the government has god-powers. If you are making a practical force argument, the government is physically capable of illegally exterminating the ranchers, but there would also be consequences.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  It is absolutely true that they can take land for public use in the US. ‘Public use’ is the exact phrase used in the constitution. Building a road or trails across private land is literally a textbook example of eminent domain.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    It isnt that simple. There is 250 years of case law defining what constitutes public use, and the situations where it can be justified. This includes when you can use it to build a road or trail, and when you cant.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      Can you point to some precedent where building a public road to a public park across unimproved land was not a valid use of the takings clause? The precedent is that eminent domain is remarkably unrestricted as to what constitutes 'public use' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London). Condemning occupied and habitable homes to build a shopping center is an allowed use per precedent at the federal level (additional restrictions apply in many states). Eminent domain for building a road is basically a given if that is the method that is chosen.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I do not have a citation. I dont like Kelo at all and doubt the current SCOTUS would rules that same, but understand the ruling. That said, in it's defense, the court was weighing the claimed benefit of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of tax revenue. They would not have ruled the same if the public benefit were a park bench with no economic value?
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Re-Native Americans, Luckily, both law and society have improved in the 200 years since the 1800's when Spain annexed Alta California. I assume you think the forceful taking of native lands by the government was bad, so why do you think it is good to roll back the clock and justify doing it today? There is an inherent contradiction here. It cant have been bad to do then, but good to do now.
- fifilura 2y ago
  "why do you think it is good to roll back the clock and justify doing it today?" They could justify giving it back?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Someone could make a slightly stronger case for giving it back to natives Maidu Indians (depending on the facts of acquisition), but they arent.
    - fifilura 2y ago
      This is what I meant. Or in this particular case, if the landowners are so stubborn that they can not even allow for a road crossing their land, they could at least hint at the idea?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Who would hint at what idea?
        fifilura 2y ago
        So the farmers does not want to give access to the land to the people. Maybe the government should remind them how they got their land in the first place?
        2y ago
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
In-group vs out-group. States can take land from out-group, not from in-group (which is why the in-group participates in that state). Also, as someone else pointed out, this land was taken from Mexico, who in turn took it from the Spanish crown. The Spanish took it from the "natives" (scare-quotes since I don't know if that tribe took it from another preceding tribe).

s1artibartfast 2y ago

That is absolutely not true. There are many restrictions on eminent domain. We live in a society of laws, not a feudal one where the government has god-powers. If you are making a practical force argument, the government is physically capable of illegally exterminating the ranchers, but there would also be consequences.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
It is absolutely true that they can take land for public use in the US. ‘Public use’ is the exact phrase used in the constitution. Building a road or trails across private land is literally a textbook example of eminent domain.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  It isnt that simple. There is 250 years of case law defining what constitutes public use, and the situations where it can be justified. This includes when you can use it to build a road or trail, and when you cant.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    Can you point to some precedent where building a public road to a public park across unimproved land was not a valid use of the takings clause? The precedent is that eminent domain is remarkably unrestricted as to what constitutes 'public use' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London). Condemning occupied and habitable homes to build a shopping center is an allowed use per precedent at the federal level (additional restrictions apply in many states). Eminent domain for building a road is basically a given if that is the method that is chosen.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I do not have a citation. I dont like Kelo at all and doubt the current SCOTUS would rules that same, but understand the ruling. That said, in it's defense, the court was weighing the claimed benefit of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of tax revenue. They would not have ruled the same if the public benefit were a park bench with no economic value?

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Re-Native Americans, Luckily, both law and society have improved in the 200 years since the 1800's when Spain annexed Alta California. I assume you think the forceful taking of native lands by the government was bad, so why do you think it is good to roll back the clock and justify doing it today? There is an inherent contradiction here. It cant have been bad to do then, but good to do now.

fifilura 2y ago
"why do you think it is good to roll back the clock and justify doing it today?" They could justify giving it back?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Someone could make a slightly stronger case for giving it back to natives Maidu Indians (depending on the facts of acquisition), but they arent.
  - fifilura 2y ago
    This is what I meant. Or in this particular case, if the landowners are so stubborn that they can not even allow for a road crossing their land, they could at least hint at the idea?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Who would hint at what idea?
      - fifilura 2y ago
        So the farmers does not want to give access to the land to the people. Maybe the government should remind them how they got their land in the first place?
        2y ago

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

In-group vs out-group. States can take land from out-group, not from in-group (which is why the in-group participates in that state). Also, as someone else pointed out, this land was taken from Mexico, who in turn took it from the Spanish crown. The Spanish took it from the "natives" (scare-quotes since I don't know if that tribe took it from another preceding tribe).