Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 19 to 27 of 29

Thread: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

  1. #19

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Big, six days ago I asked you to provide a reference to the US law you claim states that American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation. You provided a link "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain" but the link you provided does not say what you claim and does not provide a reference to the actual law. Please provide the link to the actual law.

  2. #20
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Quote Originally Posted by 8224 View Post
    Big, six days ago I asked you to provide a reference to the US law you claim states that American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation. You provided a link "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain" but the link you provided does not say what you claim and does not provide a reference to the actual law. Please provide the link to the actual law.

    Here is a real property law hypothetical for the multi-state bar exam where I found out about the law. You can believe me or not:

    Scarlett and Ashley are sitting down to dinner at Twelve Oaks, Ashley's plantation, during the Civil War. General Robert E. Lee runs in, apologizes for interrupting dinner, and explains he is going to have to burn Twelve Oaks to prevent Sherman, the enemy general, from getting it. Scarlett and Ashley leave. Ashley demands compensation from the government due to exercise of eminent domain. Will he get it?



    Amswer: No. Wartime is a special case where losses like these are non-compensable due to the "fortunes of war".

    Hope this helps.

  3. #21
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Here is their website and specific flash cards for real property law. Its pretty cheap if you want to buy and learn.

    http://www.aspenpublishers.com/Produ...&ProductType=W

  4. #22
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation


  5. #23

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Quote Originally Posted by Big View Post
    Here is a real property law hypothetical for the multi-state bar exam where I found out about the law. You can believe me or not:

    Scarlett and Ashley are sitting down to dinner at Twelve Oaks, Ashley's plantation, during the Civil War. General Robert E. Lee runs in, apologizes for interrupting dinner, and explains he is going to have to burn Twelve Oaks to prevent Sherman, the enemy general, from getting it. Scarlett and Ashley leave. Ashley demands compensation from the government due to exercise of eminent domain. Will he get it?



    Amswer: No. Wartime is a special case where losses like these are non-compensable due to the "fortunes of war".

    Hope this helps.

    This did not provide me with a link to the actual law so it did not really help.
    Since General Lee faught for the Confederate States in the Civil War I can not see how that would have any relationship to the laws of the United States of America.

  6. #24
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Now you are just playing dumb. I was nice enough to give you my source and you are just blowing it off.

    The answer above says it all. The answer applies to USA.

  7. #25

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Quote Originally Posted by Big View Post
    Now you are just playing dumb. I was nice enough to give you my source and you are just blowing it off.

    The answer above says it all. The answer applies to USA.
    How would a question about the law in another country (The Confederate States OF America) apply to the law in the United States of America? I do not accept your source as a authority on the law in the United States. Show me the real law and then we can move on. You seem to have a problem with making statements that have little real fact to back them up. I think maybe you are just lonely and know that this tactic will begin a debate. It is so sad.

  8. #26
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    What's sad is your lack of comprehension. Let me try again: THIS HYPOTHETICAL IS PART OF THE PREPARATION FOR MULTI STATE BAR EXAM IN U S A.

    What hypothetical is about is irrelevant. Its a HYPOTHETICAL (a fake story). The answer to the hypothetical is the same answer you are expected to give on the real AMERICAN bar exam. Get it?

  9. #27
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Big's hypothetical strongly suggests there is a real U.S. case about the issue. Big, if the name of that case is on your flash cards, please share it. If not, 8224, he probably doesn't have a source, but he probably is right.

    Big, I just want to make a minor point: you're right the flash cards are made to study for the bar exam. They're an expression what we call black letter law--sort of a general sense of what the law is. flhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_letter_law.

    But they may or may not be applicable to real life situations. PM-01 really seems to know what he is talking about with respect to Calif. criminal law. Law involves not just knowing rules (which can and do change), but understanding the ideas behind them. That's why in law school you will have to read lots and lots of cases and discuss what they mean. You may even find a professor who likes to use the Socratic method.

    Nothing wrong with flash cards, but another (and I would argue better) way to expand your general knowledge of law (unless you are actually facing a bar exam--really the only time where black letter is important) is to read the Restatements of Law (found in any law library), legal encyclopedias such as AmJur, or treatises (aka hornbooks) such as Erwin Chemerinsky's book on Constitutional Law or Farnsworth on Contracts (two I can highly recommend). Treatises also come in nutshells (a paperback series) which are less expensive.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •