A democracy is based on the idea that for many purposes, the best decision-making framework is to resolve difficult issues by following the wishes of the representatives of majority opinion. Therefore, when a duly elected group of County Commissioners or a local city council decide that a piece of land would be best used for the public purpose of expanding employment opportunities in the community, it would seem to follow that supporters of democracy would go along quietly with the decision.

Returning to the relationship between democracy and eminent domain, there are a number of questions that arise for a critical thinker pondering any eminent domain controversy.

1. What specific information would be needed to assist in making an intelligent decision about the issues raised in the potential tension between democracy and eminent domain?

2. What ambiguous words need to be clarified before an eminent domain controversy can be fairly decided?

3. How does this issue make it clear that the way a legal issue is framed or understood goes a long way toward telling us who will win the dispute?

4. How would you word the issue here if you were arguing on behalf of opponents to an eminent domain action?

Clue: Think about what is required for a decision to be thoughtfully democratic? In other words, democracy relies on majority opinions, but some opinions are better formed than others. What would have to be true before you would support the decision of a majority of citizens?