Posted on 10/06/2015 5:48:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Even though it's a stance not especially popular with some Republicans, Donald Trump continued to support eminent domain in an interview on Tuesday, calling it "a wonderful thing" that has unfairly received a bad rap.
Trump, a billionaire known for his major real estate development projects, described eminent domain as a useful tool that local governments can use to prevent greedy homeowners from derailing major projects that could create thousands of jobs or provide a public good. Trump said that some conservatives don't fully understand how eminent domain works and don't realize that homeowners are usually paid "four, five, six, ten times" what their property is actually worth.
"Eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it's a wonderful thing," Trump said during an interview with Fox News's Bret Baier that aired Tuesday evening. "And remember, you're not taking property… you're paying a fortune for that property."
Trump's support of eminent domain, along with his use of the practice professionally, has prompted some criticism from conservatives.Republican presidential rival Rand Paul has slammed Trump over his eminent domain views, calling the mogul “a big fan” of the practice who has “shown no consideration for small private property owners."
The super PAC for the Club for Growth, a fiscally conservative advocacy group, recently aired television advertisements in Iowa that accuse Trump of supporting "eminent domain abuse" that would allow him to "make millions while we lose our property rights." Trump said the Club for Growth's attacks have come only because he refused to donate $1 million to their cause. He added that the spots are "not right" and do not accurately explain eminent domain.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Legal quibbling over what does or does not constitute a “public purpose” doesn’t really mean very much in the real world. The public purpose is defined as something a legitimate public entity defines it as. If they get out of hand, it’s up to the citizens of that particular locality to throw the bums out, not for nine men in black robes to decide what’s a “true” public purpose or not. The poor old widow that’s about to lose her house doesn’t care whether there’s going to be a highway or a shopping mall built there.
How many folks here oppose eminent domain wherein private property is transferred to a private person (corporation) but support the Keystone Pipeline? What about the border wall?
Indeed, but not a difference between the New London case and Donald Trump's view of eminent domain. He is and has been a strong supporter of the decision, and his comments here are quite consistent with the logic of the decision.
done something? Rubio?, Cruz? really has done protests. i’ll get flamed i know. i like Cruz. Paul?, Jeb?. Kasich? (atually did a lot as rep and i have a lot of respect for him then not now. Keep every illegal here what a wimp.) but politicains only vote they really don’t do anything. Carson? done major stuff i should aspire to .1% of his accomplishments. My two time war presidents are Washington and not Lincoln, Eisenhower. I’m mellowing on Lincoln. Peace time presidents Reagan. In this cycle there are no sitting politicians going to make it. I can do Fiorina, Cruz, Carson and Trump. can’t do much else. rant over.
How do you feel about the Keystone Pipeline, Wildcat?
1010RD, how do you feel about the Keystone Pipeline? The Border wall?
How about anybody? Helloooo Mcfly, Helloooo.
And that you choose. the constitution protects those that want to live in there own house. and say no.
Kelo baby read it
No room for blanket declarations of that kind. What if it meant your own tax bill got cheaper.
Ya, just like I thought. Ok, here is some of the places Trump spends his millions:>>>
thx for posting humbling.
Most people will allow a compromise somewhere, rather than absolutism. The question is only where it is allowed.
>>>What I expect him to do is PUBLICLY state that he will not present to congress for consideration any judge or justice who is like David Souter<<<
Trump already stated that he would put Conservatives on the Court. I believe it was in the Interview with CBS, though I could be mistaken as to where I heard it.
Have all the other Republican Contenders made the Public Statement you are looking for? If so, I haven’t heard or read about it.
Just to be clear, I am a Cruz Supporter but I have no issue with Trump. He is shaking things up like no other. Time will tell, and we have a long time to see what’s what.
Yup, but causes trouble if you believe public use clause cannot involve transfer of private property to other private individual.
There are three threads at least on Trump’s comments on Eminent Domain.
i agree but he — Trump — needs to know what his position is for conservatives.
public use. not a transfer to another private citizen - kelo read the case.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/469/
He is pro kelo. that is the point he doesn’t know the difference between a constitutional taking and kelo
That’s Trump’s hurdle here.>>>
actually it is the “law of the Land” as the statists say. The hurdle is Trump doesn’t know that what the supremes did is unconstitutional.
Technically this would mean for the public entity to force-buy it then sell it to the private entity, which in turn is expected to somehow improve the community.
That is easy to abuse, so easy that most states reined in their eminent domain systems after Kelo okayed that gate. A public work like a highway, etc. would involve a lot of bother to the government and would be less likely to abuse on a whim. Having an office complex open up is easy for the government, it has a private party knocking on its door asking to do it.
Anyhow, what is the practical impact of this. A Constitutional fix to it wouldn’t involve Trump one way or another.
How can anyone who wants the votes of ordinary people argue that if a big casino developer wants the government to force you to sell your home, the big casino developer should prevail because casinos trump (pun intended) families? What kind of idiot would argue that to ordinary people?
Trump is not an idiot. He needs to modify this position. And, he can. He's modified lots of positions.
I’ve read the case. Taught it in class actually. Personally I would’ve decided with the minority. Not a valid public use. But I also view it as an “inside baseball” legal matter. The alternative viewpoint is that it’s up to local officials to decide what a valid public use is, not nine judges in Washington. I can live with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.