The Takings Clause And Regulatory Capture
State flood mitigation Strategic Buyout programs may just provide an opportunity for lawyer to challenge the new FEMA regulations based on the eminent domain regulator capture legal argument.
The Takings Clause, fractional division of land, and converting private property for economic use or “Public Use” is ripe for adjudication both at the state and federal level.
Whether a case should proceed at the state level, addressed at the legislative branch, or in a federal court is up for debate. Some constitutional legal scholars argue that legal challenges to the Takings Clause should be adjudicated at the state level while others argue it should be settled at the Supreme Court. Other legal scholars argue the Takings Clause should be decided at the Supreme Court level but also recognize it presents a momental task when there are roughly 30,000 local government municipalities with their own zoning ordinances. Therefore, because of the patchwork of numerous state zoning ordinances, Takings Clause cases are probably best decided at the state level. But other legal scholars stipulate a narrower interpretation of the “Public Interest” definition and when its proper for the government to seize private land needs to be settled at the federal level and would bring more clarity to the States when adjudicating future disputes.
Is it time to challenge Biden’s Executive Order 14008 “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad”, and the subsequent new FEMA floodplain rules either at the state or federal level? The legal argument of eminent domain by backdoor regulatory capture is when a State must abide by federal regulations either by Executive Order and/or by federal regulatory agency rules. These programs require states to abide by numerous federal regulations in order to receive taxpayer subsidized funds. Thus, eminent domain regulatory capture at the state level is promulgated by federal regulations which require states to capitulate to federal agency rules in order to receive funding for local municipalities to plan, recover and rebuild after a natural disaster.
Lawyers are the problem. They're the ones who pass all this Marxist legislation. If they challenge it they want to charge a lot of money and it doesn't necessarily they will do the right thing. Unfortunately we have to prosecute things and we have to do it through lobbying. We have to create our own lobbies and show up in the courtrooms and pack it. You start issuing notices of liability and you'll see how fast they fold