With a vote on whether or not to terminate the President’s national emergency to build the border wall looms in Washington, the question of whether or not eminent domain should be used to obtain the land for the wall is finally asking for an answer.
Eminent domain is the concept that the government will seize private property to construct a public project, and give the owner of the property what the government sees as a fair price. The idea, by definition, is unconstitutional. The United States is based off the principles of life, liberty, and property. Therefore, it is an American right to be able to protect those three things, regardless of the cost.
Take the fourth amendment, for example. It protects United States citizens from unwarranted search and seizure. As of right now, this is the closest amendment in the constitution that protects people’s land from getting taken away.
Landowners in Texas have made their way into the headlines recently with the possibility that their land may be seized in order for the wall to be constructed. It would be ridiculous to assume that everyone along the border would be okay with having their land stolen from them under the pretense of national security. As citizens of the United States, they should have a right to defend their property, and anyone who says they should be forced to seize their land is encouraging tyranny. Tyranny that the United States fought against during the American Revolution, when British soldiers were searching colonists homes and quartering in houses under military decree.
Regardless of support for the border wall, nobody should be forced to give up the land that they have purchased. This is government overreach in every form, and it should be up to the property owner what they do with their land. Always.