Author Topic: Trump on eminent domain  (Read 1822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline delilahmused

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7384
  • Reputation: +1367/-80
  • Devil Mom
Trump on eminent domain
« on: October 07, 2015, 01:52:01 AM »
This bothers me. I mean, this really, really bothers me. I don't know how you justify this. He thought the outcome of Kilo was just peachy. Conservatives would just love it if it was explained better to us. The greater good of the collective and all that. And people that want to hang on to their property? They don't really want to, they're holding out for more money. They could get a bigger house two blocks away. It's extortion dontcha know!

[youtube]https://youtu.be/YyXiEYmkAuw[/youtube]
"If God built me a ladder to heaven, I would climb it and elbow drop the world."
Mick Foley

"I am a very good shot. I have hunted for every kind of animal. But I would never kill an animal during mating season."
Hedy Lamarr

"I'm just like any modern woman trying to have it all. Loving husband, a family. It's just, I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces and join their hellish crusade."
Morticia Addams

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1710/-151
Re: Trump on eminent domain
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2015, 06:27:10 AM »
Not going to go over well in central Iowa, we drove through there last month and there were many signs posted protesting the exercise of eminent domain.
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline Boudicca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5162
  • Reputation: +413/-61
Re: Trump on eminent domain
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2015, 04:12:57 PM »
Eminent domain is situational.  He probably did deal with lots of people holding out for more money; this is the land of the big lawsuit waiting to happen or the lottery pay off, after all.  On the other hand, sometimes a developer or some governmental entity comes in a ****s over someone well and good.  Again, a really case by case basis.  I don't think one can safely always be FOR or AGAINST eminent domain.  My 2 cents.

Kelo, well, Trump said he didn't think it was explained to conservatives well enough, but in the interview Brett Baier was hurrying him along so he didn't actually get a chance to expound.  As in it seems all cases the Supreme Court was an almost split decision.  I don't know enough about the case to know whether or not they made, in my opinion, the right decision or not.

« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 04:19:19 PM by Boudicca »
Sneaking into a country doesn't make you an immigrant any
more than breaking into someone's house makes you part of the family.
(Poster bolky from thehill.com blog discussion)

Offline Belle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • Reputation: +42/-16
Re: Trump on eminent domain
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2015, 11:29:07 PM »
So I can try to understand Kelo with more clarity, I found this.   If this is wrong, I'm open to a different interpretation...in other words, help!

Quote
SCOTUS was asked to prevent Kelo from exercising the “Taking Clause”. SCOTUS said, sorry, we do not have the authority to change the United States Constitution. SCOTUS was asked to define “Public purpose”, SCOTUS said, sorry, we do not have the authority to define “Public purpose”.

In both cases they were absolutely correct. Kelo was a Constitutional Issue whose sole authority and responsibility rests with Congress and the State Legislatures.

Was Kelo an abuse of the “Taking Clause”, yes it absolutely was. But the responsibility to correct that abuse to the “Taking Clause” does not rest with the SCOTUS, its rests solely and exclusively with Congress.

The only authority the SCOTUS had to exercise regarding Kelo, was to determine whether the “Taking Clause” is Constitutional or not, and there is absolutely no question whether or not it is, since it is in the Fifth Amendment.

Whether New London was abusing the “Taking Clause” was not within the scope of the SCOTUS authority because the SCOTUS has no authority to edit, strike or modify the Constitution of the United States.

The only Constitutionally legal way to rule that New London was abusing the “Taking Clause”, would be for Congress or the State Legislatures to legislate specific legal definitions for “Public Purposes”.

Which by the way, 34 State Legislatures and Congress actually did in the wake of Kelo.

oscarwilde on October 7, 2015 at 11:37 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/07/quotes-of-the-day-2220/comment-page-1/#comments

Will this affect my decision to vote for Trump?  Absolutely not.  I, too, have read where eminent domain has caused pain & suffering to many people.  However, & I don't mean to speak without compassion, the silent invasion from our southern borders & open refugee policy for middle easterners trumps eminent domain.  Just my opinion.  If I understand kelo correctly, it is up to Congress to rein in the detrimental effects from eminent domain.

It appears that the GOPe think this is Trump's gotcha moment. Fox hit heavily on this today.  Especially Steve Hayes.  I could be wrong, but I don't think Trump's going anywhere because of this.


Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1710/-151
Re: Trump on eminent domain
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2015, 08:53:20 AM »
So I can try to understand Kelo with more clarity, I found this.   If this is wrong, I'm open to a different interpretation...in other words, help!

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/07/quotes-of-the-day-2220/comment-page-1/#comments

Will this affect my decision to vote for Trump?  Absolutely not.  I, too, have read where eminent domain has caused pain & suffering to many people.  However, & I don't mean to speak without compassion, the silent invasion from our southern borders & open refugee policy for middle easterners trumps eminent domain.  Just my opinion.  If I understand kelo correctly, it is up to Congress to rein in the detrimental effects from eminent domain.

It appears that the GOPe think this is Trump's gotcha moment. Fox hit heavily on this today.  Especially Steve Hayes.  I could be wrong, but I don't think Trump's going anywhere because of this.

It's a lame-ish attempt to justify the Supreme Court decision, where the Court chose to avoid ruling on the 'Public purpose' issue which a different Supreme Court could easily have decided differently.  But bottom line, it isn't even relevant to Trump's comments, which were not really about whether the Supreme Court was correct, but whether the underlying and disputed exercise of eminent domain was a proper thing to do.

As a footnote, as I recall, the whole project for which the homes of those people were legally stolen never actually got off the ground.
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline samspade

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Reputation: +20/-10
Re: Trump on eminent domain
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2015, 10:04:18 AM »
Seems to me there is another case of eminent domain in Florida where property was taken and the land is a wasteland now while people lost their homes.

Offline Boudicca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5162
  • Reputation: +413/-61
Re: Trump on eminent domain
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2015, 10:23:02 AM »
I read a little more about this case, which is rather interesting and as is true for all Supreme Court cases, hopelessly mired in controversy or it wouldn't be there.  But at the time of the Kelo ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court's position on the seizure of property for compensation was based on the current state law, and prior and up to 2005 and Kelo, the Court's position re particular cases defaulted to that of each individual state's law.  Since Kelo, a number of legislatures have rewritten their laws to prevent such instances of eminent domain from reoccurring, so for private property rights absolute advocates over any perceived public benefits derived from the redirection of the property in question to an enterprise intended to benefit the community at large, that should be a comfort of sorts.

I may be talking out of my ass because until Cindie brought up this case, I'd never given the topic of eminent domain much thought in the grand scheme of what's going on in our country, but now I wonder.  I know the practice was carried out for the highway system and the railroads earlier, even though the railroads were IIRC, built by private persons for profit as well as the public good.  How does the picture for the Keystone Pipeline development look, if we get a president and Congress working in sync to finally pass the project?  I think any eminent domain holdouts would be out of luck?  Same with a border fence, although with due compensation I doubt there'd be many, if any, property owners along the border unwilling to sacrifice some acreage for increased security from the thugs cutting their barbed wire fences, killing their livestock, raiding their homes and in general just traipsing across their land discarding their garbage and making general nuisances of themselves.

The fact that nine years later the Pfizer corporation pulled out and the City of New London's proposed economic development which would have benefited, not only the rich but the poor and working classes in the form of jobs and the city as a whole in the form of increased taxes due to the businesses that would have relocated, does not change the facts on the ground in front of the Supreme Court that day when they decided the case based on a rather strict interpretation of state's laws being pre-eminent in these sorts of cases up until that time.  They did not establish a new precedent, and still have not, since it's my understanding (again I may be talking out of my ass) that they still defer to each state's law in these circumstances.

Well, this is what youall get when I spend 15 minutes reading about something...and I'm the first to admit everything I wrote may be wrong.  I'm not a lawyer, and thank God for that!   :-)

Bottom line for me is my deal breakers continue to be illegal criminal invasion and our national security, both economic and against foreign foes.  Those candidates I don't repose confidence in on any one of those key issues (to me) is not someone I'd be inclined to vote for.  YMMV.
Sneaking into a country doesn't make you an immigrant any
more than breaking into someone's house makes you part of the family.
(Poster bolky from thehill.com blog discussion)

Offline delilahmused

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7384
  • Reputation: +1367/-80
  • Devil Mom
Re: Trump on eminent domain
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2015, 04:11:00 PM »
So I can try to understand Kelo with more clarity, I found this.   If this is wrong, I'm open to a different interpretation...in other words, help!

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/07/quotes-of-the-day-2220/comment-page-1/#comments

Will this affect my decision to vote for Trump?  Absolutely not.  I, too, have read where eminent domain has caused pain & suffering to many people.  However, & I don't mean to speak without compassion, the silent invasion from our southern borders & open refugee policy for middle easterners trumps eminent domain.  Just my opinion.  If I understand kelo correctly, it is up to Congress to rein in the detrimental effects from eminent domain.

It appears that the GOPe think this is Trump's gotcha moment. Fox hit heavily on this today.  Especially Steve Hayes.  I could be wrong, but I don't think Trump's going anywhere because of this.

I don't expect it to change anyone's vote. Every candidate is going to have baggage. His attitude about it is more important to me. His assumption ("I don't think it was explained to conservative") that conservatives don't understand it is condescending. People can understand an issue and come to completely different decisions with the same facts. Some of these properties have sat empty for ages. Why the hell should someone get kicked out of their house when the land it sits on is still there?

It sets a dangerous precident. The "greater good" can be anything the government/developers want it to be. What's to stop them from deciding building a wind or solar farm where someone's ranch is? Or an over exuberant liberal government decided that a home owner has a wetlands on their property and it should be protected for "the greater good". And it's not always about the money as he presumes.

However, there are other candidates who are excellent when it comes to the border & refugee situation. It's still too early for me to pick a candidate. I have no problem voting for Trump if he's the nominee but most of the people paying attention right now are political junkies. It's too soon for regular folk to pay attention. There are also other important issues. Russia is running rings around us. The Middle East is on fire. Iran will probably have a nuke sooner rather than later. Israel is in serious danger and has no allies anymore. QE has pumped so much useless paper into the market, the dollar is severely weakened. Our health care system is in shambles and on and on. This isn't to say Trump wouldn't/couldn't address all of these but I'm still listening to other candidates as well.

Cindie
"If God built me a ladder to heaven, I would climb it and elbow drop the world."
Mick Foley

"I am a very good shot. I have hunted for every kind of animal. But I would never kill an animal during mating season."
Hedy Lamarr

"I'm just like any modern woman trying to have it all. Loving husband, a family. It's just, I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces and join their hellish crusade."
Morticia Addams

Offline Boudicca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5162
  • Reputation: +413/-61
Re: Trump on eminent domain
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2015, 06:13:34 PM »
I don't expect it to change anyone's vote. Every candidate is going to have baggage. His attitude about it is more important to me. His assumption ("I don't think it was explained to conservative") that conservatives don't understand it is condescending. People can understand an issue and come to completely different decisions with the same facts. Some of these properties have sat empty for ages. Why the hell should someone get kicked out of their house when the land it sits on is still there?

It sets a dangerous precident. The "greater good" can be anything the government/developers want it to be. What's to stop them from deciding building a wind or solar farm where someone's ranch is? Or an over exuberant liberal government decided that a home owner has a wetlands on their property and it should be protected for "the greater good". And it's not always about the money as he presumes.

However, there are other candidates who are excellent when it comes to the border & refugee situation. It's still too early for me to pick a candidate. I have no problem voting for Trump if he's the nominee but most of the people paying attention right now are political junkies. It's too soon for regular folk to pay attention. There are also other important issues. Russia is running rings around us. The Middle East is on fire. Iran will probably have a nuke sooner rather than later. Israel is in serious danger and has no allies anymore. QE has pumped so much useless paper into the market, the dollar is severely weakened. Our health care system is in shambles and on and on. This isn't to say Trump wouldn't/couldn't address all of these but I'm still listening to other candidates as well.

Cindie

As am I, believe it or not.  LOL, I know I push Trump all the time because I actually don't mind his attitude.  He kind of reminds me of my dear departed father, who was truly an asshole you either loved or hated.  I've been told by more than one person that I am like that too.  He doesn't operate with a filter very often and nor does Ben Carson, so he's also widely loved and reviled.  I like the idea of the two of them from a checks and balances viewpoint.
It may well be that because I live in a border county of a border state AND was raised to respect law and order, not to mention the ideal of fair play, but the notion of being overrun by a bunch of "economic" refugees is NOT an act of love; it's deeply offensive on so many levels I need not articulate here as most, if not all of you share them, and Lord knows I've shared my opinion on the issue more than once. :whistling:
Almost more, maybe MORE, than our enemies snapping at our heels sensing our self-inflicted weaknesses courtesy of Obama and all the suppliant media and stuporous electorate, is the absolute bane of political correctness.  It's become a vile stain on our national consciousness, akin to navel gazing but so much more dangerous because it stifles dissenting opinions and encourages the worst of our population, the Sharptons and Wrights and damn near every mealy mouthed son of a bitch MSM asshole who led a bunch of idiots to the polling booths twice for a total loser nation wrecker, to proclaim themselves the arbiters of what is, and what is not, acceptable behavior for the rest of us.  With the rise of the rebel outsiders I think we are at the non-violent beginning of a revolution in national politics and it's been too long in coming.  That is why for me anyway this time it's not going to be about voting along party lines; I need more than an initial after the nominee's name on the ballot to vote Republican.  So I continue to listen, but it's not really what they say because we've got an entire Congress full of elected officials who said all the right things, but didn't DO anything once they "made it".  That's why Cruz is impressive and some of the others, not so much.
And then the outsiders have enormous private successes in their resumes, and considering we were supposed to be a nation of volunteer political office holders for whom service was a privilege and a duty, not some pre-ordained right, well it just makes Donald and Ben more attractive to me.  I have wondered about Carly, but the same things that bother people about Trump and his shooting his mouth off kind of make me leery of her, for the opposite reason, she always seems TOO controlled.  It's nothing I can explain better at this point, and I know that we are supposed to listen to their words and promises on positions, but it's so damn easy to SAY something, but what have they actually accomplished.
Sorry, this kind of veered way off the topic of eminent domain.  And, it's time for me to make dinner so I'd better get into the kitchen. :-)
Sneaking into a country doesn't make you an immigrant any
more than breaking into someone's house makes you part of the family.
(Poster bolky from thehill.com blog discussion)