Scott Zagoria
New Member
Greetings. I'm researching for a dissertation concerning the proposed/claimed US right of way through the Mexican isthmus [i.e., Tehuantepec] in the mid-19th century. [I have no legal training formal or otherwise!]
However, it seems increasingly apparent during the course of my review of relevant literature, that several factors impacted US/Mexican relations, i.e., 'free access' is an ambiguous term in English whereas in Spanish the words 'gratis' and 'libre' are used to distinguish the alternative meanings.
My question relates to the legal basis for right of way albeit none likely exists in relation to a foreign nation. At least such was the viewpoint of Mexico and the prominent European powers. But the right of way demand remained on the table following the Mexican War [Gadsden Treaty] until well after the Civil War.
Under Roman law, a right of way allowed shepherds to seek pasture across privately owned land, i.e., an easement. This seems to me a singular mitigation of private property. Owners can seek redress in the courts if said right of way proves untenable. In theory, no individual can contest another's property. So, is this in fact an extension of 'eminent domain'?
As such, the actual situation is that the State assumes rights on behalf of civil welfare. The neighbor is obliged to conform with the requirements of a stable food supply. And in the case of eminent domain, the owner receives compensation. Similarly, in terms of a right of way, a fee simple contractual arrangement also provides remuneration.
I also note there have been many protracted efforts to oppose eminent domain and that its origins lay in 18th century Militia Law, as well as in the various published legal codes available at the time of the writing of the Constitution. My research has further encouraged me to distrust Federalists immensely, for whatever that might be worth.
I realize this matter of right of way through 'a neighbor's' property and usage of principles of eminent domain to seize foreign territory are a bit esoteric in relation to this forum; nonetheless any and all replies would be gratefully appreciated. Best wishes in any case.
However, it seems increasingly apparent during the course of my review of relevant literature, that several factors impacted US/Mexican relations, i.e., 'free access' is an ambiguous term in English whereas in Spanish the words 'gratis' and 'libre' are used to distinguish the alternative meanings.
My question relates to the legal basis for right of way albeit none likely exists in relation to a foreign nation. At least such was the viewpoint of Mexico and the prominent European powers. But the right of way demand remained on the table following the Mexican War [Gadsden Treaty] until well after the Civil War.
Under Roman law, a right of way allowed shepherds to seek pasture across privately owned land, i.e., an easement. This seems to me a singular mitigation of private property. Owners can seek redress in the courts if said right of way proves untenable. In theory, no individual can contest another's property. So, is this in fact an extension of 'eminent domain'?
As such, the actual situation is that the State assumes rights on behalf of civil welfare. The neighbor is obliged to conform with the requirements of a stable food supply. And in the case of eminent domain, the owner receives compensation. Similarly, in terms of a right of way, a fee simple contractual arrangement also provides remuneration.
I also note there have been many protracted efforts to oppose eminent domain and that its origins lay in 18th century Militia Law, as well as in the various published legal codes available at the time of the writing of the Constitution. My research has further encouraged me to distrust Federalists immensely, for whatever that might be worth.
I realize this matter of right of way through 'a neighbor's' property and usage of principles of eminent domain to seize foreign territory are a bit esoteric in relation to this forum; nonetheless any and all replies would be gratefully appreciated. Best wishes in any case.
