yes they should
Yes. No. I think you're referring to imminent domain, the right of the state to obtain private property for public use. Depending on the state in which the property is located, you should investigate homesteading laws which govern the ownership of unclaimed land.
Because a person's property should be sacrosanct, and not subject to taking against their will. Granted, some form of compensation is given, but it is the taker who determines what is paid.
To petition a court for the release of funds held due to eminent domain, you should file a motion in the appropriate court where the eminent domain case was adjudicated. This motion should include relevant details, such as the amount owed, evidence of the property taken, and any applicable laws or precedents supporting your claim for the release of the funds. Be sure to follow the court's specific procedural rules and deadlines, and consider consulting with an attorney experienced in eminent domain cases for assistance.
Generally the landowner has no power to stipulate (demand or specify) any terms regarding a taking by eminent domain. It will be done according to the legal process in the jurisdiction. If this affects you it should be discussed with an attorney who specializes in property law in your jurisdiction.
it would fall under the government and that would happen
Eminent Domain is bad because it sometimes violates the fifth amendment with the assistance of courts and judges. People are supposed to be provided with just compensation for their homes. But they are usually not. The case of Kelo v. City of New London just proves this point even more. Eminent domain should not be used, unless it is for the improvement of bridges, tunnels, parks, schools or uses that are truly for use by the public and not private developers.
It shouldn't be stopped because eminent domain is sometimes necessary to prevent greedy, selfish or bigotted people from sabotaging the public good. What is necessary is a revision of the law, and if necessary the Constitution, to prevent any repetition of the recent scandalous behaviour in Connecticut where some people had their family homes taken away so that private enterprise could make some private money.
It gives you the right to a trial by jury, keeps you from being tried twice (double jeopardy) for the same crime, gives you the right to avoid self-incrimination, ensures Due process of law, and defines Eminent domain. All of these of course are subject to court's interpretation, and we've seen lately what liberal judges think of the constitution, eminent domain, due process, and pretty much the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The government can confiscate property for the public good through a legal process known as eminent domain, which allows for the acquisition of private land for public use, such as infrastructure projects. However, this authority should be exercised judiciously and with fair compensation to the property owner to ensure justice. The balance between public benefit and individual rights is crucial, and transparency in the process is essential to maintain public trust. Ultimately, any confiscation should prioritize the common good while respecting individual property rights.
domain functional level should be win2k3 only then you can rename domain controller (like abc.microsoft.com) forest functional level should be win2k3 only then you can rename domain name like (microsoft.com)
No, you should not let you domain expire and then repurcahse it. If you intend on using the domain name again, you should pay any fees early before your ownership is up to prevent someone else who is ready to take it.