The Instigator
ajg897
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kevin.locks
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

U.S. Constitution: Do you agree with eminent domain

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 74054
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

ajg897

Con

First round - Introduction on position
Second round - Arguments
Third round-Rebuttal
Fourth round- If you where in power, how would you handle eminent domain?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am debating that eminent domain is one of the only flaws in the U.S. constitution and that it doesn't have much benefit to it, and that there is a better system
kevin.locks

Pro

I support Eminent Domain as an idea that is both constitutional and useful. It is selfish to say that it's not useful just because you don't want it happening to you. It is however useful the State, that being said I do not support how we handle the procedure in modern times but I do not consider it to be a flaw in the Constitution.
Debate Round No. 1
ajg897

Con

to start of eminant domain allows for the Federal government, not the state governments, to take your land but needs to use the land for public use and also needs to pay for the market price of the land. The problem is that there isn't much use for the land as the federal government agencies in themselves are against the 10th amendment to the constitution, and the use of these lands are to be for the creation of voting booths.


Who determins the market price? As inflation and deflation is occurant thoughout are economy it is increasinly harder to get the true market value for a land or property. Therer is no set amount for market prices only a mean, which in itself csn be subjective and only implyed in a small area because it is next to impossible to caulculate the trade between all lands of property and impossible to specify means of commerce in a land.

I concede that eminant domain can be useful but it should be held at a state level instead of a federal level, and all disputes between states are to held up in the United states supreme court.The constitution highlights that cases that go to the supreme court are cases of there choosing, and all cases of disputes between states. The framers intended for the supreme court to be the median between states and there should not be any disputes between states about eminant domain because a state can only claim land in the state boundries.

National parks will be preserved on the state level with state run agiencies, also note that it is easier for the people to be the masters of there government when it is at a local level
kevin.locks

Pro

When I said State I was referring to the concept of the state. State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms:country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
"an autonomous state"

Market value is not impossible to figure out the market value of you property is whatever potential buyers are willing to pay for it. You said that state not federal governments should exercise eminent domain. I agree however that is not the title of this debate. without eminent domain how would we establish government or military buildings?
Debate Round No. 2
ajg897

Con

A state is actually according to you a ,"nation or territory considered a organized political community." So because you are not recognizing the states in the United states you are implying that states are not organized political territories and you are implying that the United states of America, with no single motherstate just a bunch of equal states, is intrinsicly not a recognized political territory, you argument is destroying you own point.

You then went to give me some synonyms and included in the synonyms," land, sovereign state, reoublic, confederation." All of those synonyms apply to the united States of America, and because the federal government owns no land, it is all owned by the states, so once again you are implying that the United States is not a organized political territory. Good argument, maybe next time it wont contradict.

It is not impossible to figure out the market value of property, and I said this in my last argument you just reused my words in order to sway the judge in your favor. Judges look at my old argument, I clearly said it was not impossible. and in order to correctly calculate the market value will takie to much reasorces and time, state and local levels are not as time-consuming or reasorce consuming.

You then concide," You said that state not federal governments should exercise eminent domain. I agree " so he is saying that he agrees that eminant domain should not be at a federal level, which was the topic of my first argument.

And its very simple to make a ilitary base, the federal government goes to the states, says," Hi could we use some land to make a military base." the state accepts and uses its eminant domain powers to clear some room. But if the fed can use federal eminant domain they go into this area without the states permision.
kevin.locks

Pro

It seems that you are the one who does not understand the deeper concept of state beyond the concept of the states that make up the Union. I never implied there was no federal government. You are attempting to distract the readers with a well worded but false argument. now let me be clear.

state
stāt/Submit
noun
1.
the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
"the state of the company's finances"
synonyms:condition, shape, situation, circumstances, position; More
a physical condition as regards internal or molecular form or structure.
"water in a liquid state"
informal
an agitated or anxious condition.
noun: a state
"don't get into a state"
synonyms:fluster, frenzy, fever, fret, panic, state of agitation/anxiety; More
informal
a dirty or untidy condition.
"look at the state of you"what a mess!"
synonyms:mess, chaos, disorder, disarray, confusion, muddle, heap, shambles; More
PHYSICS
short for quantum state.
2.
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms:country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
"an autonomous state"

Based on this definition but the states of the Union as well as the Federal government are types of States. The concept of State or the State have philosophical depth that you do not seem to grasp. You claimed that the there is no Federally owned land, but The Washington Post seems to differ.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
ajg897

Con

Implying I wasn't already looking at the deeper concept
Implying I wasn't looking beyond your post
implying I was only talking about the United states
Implying I was trying to distract the readers
Impying you weren't clear before but is emphasizing it becasue your last argument failed
You clearly said that you defined a state as a 'claimed political territory' by trying to deny my argument of the states you are implying that the United States is not a recognized political territory

You brought up a definition, Judges his only argument is a definition and he used the same definition last round and I worked to disaprove it, he has nothing agianst me and does not do anything but establish what a state was.



"Based on this definition but the states of the Union as well as the Federal government are types of States. The concept of State or the State have philosophical depth that you do not seem to grasp. You claimed that the there is no Federally owned land, but The Washington Post seems to differ."


He uses the Washington Post which is entirly subjective and is written by a person not even involved in government. He doesn't even create his own arguments, judges are you seriously going to contemplete voting for him? He than says there is a philosophical depth I do not grasp but in my last arguments he used a blatant contradiction. I claimed that all land is owned by the states the only exception is the land the states allows to give to the federal government, and the District of Columbia
kevin.locks

Pro

I have stated a definition, because that is all that was needed to beat your argument. You'r argument was based on a misunderstanding of the difference between state and federal government as well as the concept of " State". It comes down to this. The Constitution allows for eminent domain, and your belief that there is no Federally owned land is completely incorrect just refer to the map of federal land I provided.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Eminent domain!?! Stop paying your property taxes and the government will take your property from you "without just compensation." Now that is not in the US Constitution.

Eminent domain is not the problem.
No votes have been placed for this debate.