City Park Public Access

[ness]

Tell you guys what...how about you nip the political stuff in the bud before it gets out of hand. We've been asked, repeatedly, and some of the same folks, to steer away from it. So we oughta.

Seems like no matter what the hell the thread is, they always go the same direction lately.

[eric1978]

I'm pretty sure that land access is NOT and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

No, but eminent domain is constitutional, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Nor is MARRIAGE

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is liberty not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

Guys, stop it or I'm telling Dad! Waaaa! Waaaaa!

It's pertinent to the thread. Relax. It's been a friendly debate for the most part, so King Ness' intervention isn't needed at this point. Thanks for your concern. Goodbye.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Tell you guys what...how about you nip the political stuff in the bud before it gets out of hand. We've been asked, repeatedly, and some of the same folks, to steer away from it. So we oughta.

Seems like no matter what the hell the thread is, they always go the same direction lately.

Phil hasn't left on his trip yet. So take your Jr. Ranger Forum Secret Monitor badge off.

[ness]

Oh -- now it's personal. Nice.

Goodbye, as in you're leaving? What will we do without your constantly flogging the forum with your political BS? Maybe talk about fishing?

It's just old Eric. Really old. The vast majority of the folks here just don't give a rat's arse what you think about that stuff, and you're largely ineffective in making your points because of your inability to steer clear of it. You think you've ever changed anybody's mind here? Nope. So, you just like to hear yourself talk, right?

It's a forum about the Ozarks, dude.

[Terry Beeson]

No, but eminent domain is constitutional...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is liberty not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

Can you explain where eminent domain is noted in the constitution? (Not saying it's not there, just want to see it.)

And can you explain how liberty and marriage are related? (Again, not disputing, just want clarification of your findings.)

[troutfiend1985]

No, but eminent domain is constitutional, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is liberty not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

It's pertinent to the thread. Relax. It's been a friendly debate for the most part, so King Ness' intervention isn't needed at this point. Thanks for your concern. Goodbye.

Emminent domain is in the Taking's clause, not an affirmation of a right to private citizens to access land. I know that's pretty shallow, but I just got done with a one hour presentation to satisfy my ABA oral presentation requirement so my brain is shot. I'll look into that a little more and give you some language that shows what I'm talking about. Eric, one thing I want to make clear is that Eminent domain scares the hell out of me, and this is an area where the Supreme Court is giving great deference to the Federal Government.

Liberty is gauranteed in the bill of rights, but marriage is not. I'm going to end the marraige part in order to keep this thread from going "political" but I'll PM you a portion of my outline for con law II that will show you what I'm talking about. You're in the ballpark on this, but there is an important distinction. Plus I'll give you my political view, as I think we might be on the same side on this issue.

[ozark trout fisher]

It's a forum. People will talk and opinions will be aired, some of which other people will disagree with and argue against. That's why we're all on here. And if the discussion is political-I don't really see a problem as long as it's relevant to the thread-as most posts on this thread have been.It would be different if we were arguing about the health care debate of the stimulous package

No one honestly expects to change others opinions. It can happen-what others have said on this forum has before changed my opinion on things -but it's not really the point. It's a discussion board where we all get the chance to hear the opinions of others, some of which I agree with, some of which I simply disagree with, and some of which I find downright offensive. That's just what you'll find on any forum.

In the mean-time, I'll be fighting for stream access rights. The poll on the other thread about this indicates that many, and probably most Ozark fisherman think that the access issue is a problem worth addressing. And I agree. I'm not yet exactly sure what the best way to address the problem, and I'm not sure what impact I can have on it. But I do plan on giving it one hell of a try.

[eric1978]

It's a forum about the Ozarks, dude.

Yep, and access to the streams that run through the Ozarks is pertinent to the forum, dude. Retrace the thread...you'll see I didn't steer us in this direction. You just don't like me or my opinions, so you single me out. Get over it. This conversation was civil until you got involved.

Can you explain where eminent domain is noted in the constitution? (Not saying it's not there, just want to see it.)

Obviously it's not IN the constitution, but the Supreme Court has never decided that it is unconstitutional. Maybe I should have phrased it that way...eminent domain is not unconstitutional. TF would be better with the technicalities. I'm no lawyer, and could be totally wrong, but if something isn't unconstitutional, doesn't that make it constitutional?

And can you explain how liberty and marriage are related? (Again, not disputing, just want clarification of your findings.)

Liberty: "autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority, political independence, freedom of choice"

I'd say marriage falls under that umbrella.

Emminent domain is in the Taking's clause, not an affirmation of a right to private citizens to access land.

No, you're right TF...eminent domain does not give the right to access a private citizen's land. But it does give the government the right to seize private property, with the appropriate compensation, for government or public use. So my point was, in a round-about way, that the government could, technically apply eminent domain to small streams to open them for public use...and of course compensate the landowners accordingly. It still wouldn't give anyone the right to wander through someone's field or forest, but you could travel through the waterway as a train travels a railroad that was built upon land purchased through eminent domain.

Not saying it would ever happen, but one can dream, no?

[troutfiend1985]

No, you're right TF...eminent domain does not give the right to access a private citizen's land. But it does give the government the right to seize private property, with the appropriate compensation, for government or public use. So my point was, in a round-about way, that the government could, technically apply eminent domain to small streams to open them for public use...and of course compensate the landowners accordingly. It still wouldn't give anyone the right to wander through someone's field or forest, but you could travel through the waterway as a train travels a railroad that was built upon land purchased through eminent domain.

Not saying it would ever happen, but one can dream, no?

Dead on, and trust me, Dreams keep the world going. I'm not of the position that public access to all streams is wrong, I just don't know if its right(if that makes any sense lol).

To answer Terry's question, the takings clause(eminent domain) is found in the 5th Amendment; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The liberty that eric is referring to (I believe) is located in the 5th Amendment. However that is due process, and is a subject for a different web site.

I don't know what about the constitution is political, in all reality it is a legal document. However, I know that marriage is political, even though it has a legal element in it. I would think that it would be in this fourms best interest to keep the topic on eminent domain and the 5th if we're going to talk about law. IMO. I hope that I haven't offended anyone, if I have then I want to make sure that everyone knows that it was not my intention.

[FishinCricket]

. It's a discussion board where we all get the chance to hear the opinions of others, some of which I agree with, some of which I simply disagree with, and some of which I find downright offensive.

:sigh:

Always nice to know where you fit in.. lol

Gnight, boys.. I'm goin' fishin'.