Opinion ID: 2575723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Constitutional Limitations and the Framers' Intent

Text: ¶ 10 It is settled law that the constitutional eminent domain provisions are not grants of power, but limitations placed upon the exercise of government power. City of Pryor Creek v. Pub. Serv. Co., 1975 OK 81, 536 P.2d 343, 345 (citation omitted). The constitutional limitations on the power of eminent domain serve to protect `the security of Property,' which Alexander Hamilton described to the Philadelphia Convention as one of the `great ob[jects] of Gov[ernment].' Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, ___, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 2671, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005) (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (alteration in original) (quoting 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 302 (M. Farrand ed., 1934)). The framers of the Oklahoma Constitution likewise recognized that to protect both life and property is the first duty of government. ALBERT H. ELLIS, A HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, p. iv. (Introduction and Endorsement by William H. Murray, President of the Constitutional Convention) (1923). In keeping with these principles, we have determined the government's power of eminent domain lies dormant in the state until the Legislature by specific enactment designates the occasion, modes and agencies by which it may be placed in operation. City of Pryor Creek, 536 P.2d at 345-46. A governmental body subordinate to the state (i.e., local governments such as a city, town, municipality or county) may not exercise, create, extend or expand a power of eminent domain in the absence of statutory authority. Id.; City of Midwest City v. House of Realty, Inc., 2004 OK 56, ¶ 19, 100 P.3d 678, 685.