http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/tablet/images/claim.jpg We're all here on this earth using what we have. We've been taught that things we are given are ours solely to use for our own personal use and so we identify that with ownership. For instance when you're born there is a piece of paper created and somewhere along the way someone hands it to you and you believe that's yours. You're told what your name is. It's that is also yours but the thing about it is its intellectual property. It's owned by someone else. Under use of property laws everything created is owned by someone else. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3363/3311100676_b996889884_z.jpg?zz=1 To put it a simpler way, I have nothing to do with anything that's out there at all …show more content…
https://media.defense.gov/2016/Aug/08/2001598245/670/394/0/160805-F-DL164-001.JPG Here's the key the world is under martial law. It has already happened and it's over with, at least since World War One. Here in the USA we were the model for the New World Order of martial law. When we had Civil War the Lieber code was enacted. It's the law that the military has to follow. Within that code there's an article that says during war times the soldiers will protect the peaceful inhabitants. This code was reenacted under the League of Nations renamed The Hague Convention. The same rules still apply today. The peaceful inhabitants are non combatative users of property. In 1933 with the creation of the birth certificate and the Social Security number no one ever had to charge anyone else for anything else ever again. No one is liable. https://image.slidesharecdn.com/lightandshadowcourtsandcountycourtsdistrictsa-140811123049-phpapp02/95/light-and-shadow-courts-and-county-courts-districts-84-638.jpg?cb=1407760438 Source: https://www.slideshare.net/uniquelee/light-and-shadow-courts-and-county-courts-districts It’s called social insurance. The reason this was done is we were at that time using gold and silver. People were accountable and things before. The Social Security and the birth certificate and that was damaging our brothers and sisters. We were accusing our brothers and sisters and creating more harm than
Should the United States government be allowed to seize property from you without any explanation or compensation? That is a question many people in the U.S. are asking themselves today. Eminent domain should not be allowed in the United States for several reasons. People own buildings that they do not want destroyed because they are family dwellings or places of business. People have money invested in the buildings and the property they sit on and do not feel it is right to lose it to the government. There are also the property owners who want to protect their property because it has been handed down in their family for many generations.
1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?
1.Adams orders one thousand widgets at $5 per widget from International Widget to be delivered within sixty days. After the contract is consummated and signed, Adams requests that International deliver the widgets within thirty days rather than sixty days. International agrees. Is the contractual modification binding?
Question: Is the policy of eminent domain providing for the public welfare, through the taking of privately owned property, using a rightful procedure involving due process and just compensation as it was intended to do when the policy was founded?
When the topic of owning something comes up, the conversation can go two ways: one may argue that ownership is owning an object, many other people, such as Jean-Paul Sartre believe that you can own something by becoming an expert in a certain skill and knowing something thoroughly.It's possible to own an idea or a skill, such as my idea about ownership, and to own a tangible object, such as a book. The verb " to own" doesn't just mean to physically have something, it also means to know something, or to make something a part of ourselves.
In the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, he writes about the right to private property. In the chapter which is titled “Of Property” he tells how the right to private property originated, the role it plays in the state of nature, the limitations that are set on the rights of private property, the role the invention of money played in property rights and the role property rights play after the establishment of government.. In this chapter Locke makes significant points about private property. In this paper I will summarize his analysis of the right to private property, and I will give my opinion on some of the points Locke makes in his book. According to Locke, the right to private property originated when God gave the world to
Eminent Domain is the actual inherent power of the government to take over a citizens’ property for public use without the owner’s consent. This was initially a part of public policy that originated in the middle ages throughout the world. It was adopted by into British Common law before reaching the Americas where it was then established into the U.S. Constitution in 1791 called the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This grants the federal government the right to exercise eminent domain, provided protect to citizens, and protect the property rights of citizens. Shortly after the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment was introduced making the federal guarantee of “just compensation” applicable to the states. Property owners are offered the fair market value for their property and if they
Eminent Domain is the inherent power of the state to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. This is commonly done when the acquisition of property is needed for the completion of a project. These projects can be for transportation such as highways or bridges or even for buildings such as schools or government buildings. This excerpt states that ''The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.''160 Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no
These days there have been many issues surrounding the topic of private property and eminent domain. I feel that eminent domain is a good way to keep the needs of the community and each person’s individual property rights balanced. Even though I believe individual property rights are more important that the needs of the community, I also believe the government sometimes has to take that property away for the better good of the community. At the same time I also understand how people feel when they talk about “NIMBY” (not in my back yard), and also about their personal needs.
The disclaimer that protects Sierra Nevada Trees Inc. from liability in a claim for consequential damages contained in the purchase order acknowledgement is part of the agreement with Burger Ranch Inc. Burger Ranch Inc. accepted the terms of the offer and there was proper performance by both parties.
Attached is the detailed chart showing the interplay between these two probabilities (Figure 3). It also shows two nuanced inputs i.e.
The ideology behind what private property represents and conveys through the theories of both Locke and Marx's results in contrasting views. Locke heavily stresses the blending of labor and common land to create private property to increase one’s wealth. Liberty and livelihood under Locke’s theory is tied to the ability of an individual to control the use of their private property. Marx’s theory strongly contends that the bourgeoisie has gained control of the profit making private properties leaving the working class in a stage of exploitation. Marx’s conclusion then is to set private property in the hands of the people in hopes of creating universal economic equality. Respectively each thesis places governments, labour and religion
The purpose of the paper research is to identify the world of property law that remains confusing to quite a number of people regarding personal and real property. Due to this confusion, a number of disputes arise when parties fail to reach an agreement especially when the seller includes the item in question as part of the sale of the realty and the buyer has a different view. This research will identify five examples of fixtures and real property in my house that will be enlightening especially pertaining the two gray areas. The research will also look at the determination made by commercial law pertaining to the evaluation of real property and fixtures and the exceptions when applying such tests. In the research, it will highlight the question of figuring out what fixtures are and the significant importance or raise this question with regards to the increase in the number of disputes associated with property law in case the value of the personal property exceeds the real property value. Finally, the research will identify different scenarios that may give rise to disputes regarding personal property and fixtures and how these fixtures are identified using different tests conducted by the property law courts in order to come to a consensus.
The Utilitarian theory of property seeks to maximize the population’s utility when a property decision is made, the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. To apply this theory one must define and aggregate a measure of utility comparable for all people in a cost-benefit analysis. A popular measure for utility, under the welfarist economics utilitarian view, is utilizing the price a person is willing to pay for a good or service as the value aggregated in the cost-benefit analysis. However, a strict welfarist utilitarian analysis will not work in this instance because welfarisim is too individualistic and decisions regarding public property and disability access will necessarily involve other costs, such as those to the
The concept of property and property rights is a topic which many philosophers have struggled to describe. The renowned political theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke hold vastly different opinions in regard to the concept of property. In 1651, Hobbes outlined his views in his book, Leviathan, where he discusses societal structure and his social contract theory. Almost forty years later, Locke published his Second Treatise of Government, in which he described mankind’s state of nature, and natural rights. These two works expressed near complete opposite viewpoints in regards to the nature of property and human rights.