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 ...
Yes I dare because I'd rather win with Trump than lose with Cruz.
I reject your silly paternalist scolding as you don't seem to have a sense of humor.
Your insinuation of being me against Jesus Christ and the American revolution, due to my unwillingness to bail on Trump based on Kelo - that is funny, sad and distressing all at once. You must know me well and what is in my heart.
America is a singular, unique nation of laws--not men-- opportunity, freedom, and religious liberty, founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and dedicated to Jesus Christ by its earliest settlers. Men have shed blood and died in the effort to create it and to keep it since the days of the Revolution.
As you seem to like to make a show of your saintliness I would hate for your piety to be stained so you may want to reflect and pray (in public of course so everyone can see) upon how you disagree with those who would be your friends and allies - its a primary after all.
I enjoy how disagreeing with you - transforms me into a person with liberal tendencies - oh no better go get that checked out.
As to large theme of using the Trump/Kelo support being a test of ones purity of belief in liberty, opportunity and freedom and general all around conservatism of those that came before to this office let me review briefly and incompletely.
The only one probably to pass the test in the last 150 odd years would be Calvin Coolidge - he seemed like he was awesome.
Have a joyous day
No developer should EVER try to use the government to forcefully take someone's property for the benefit of a private development. I don't care what the leftists on the Supreme Court said in Kelo; it's unconstitutional and not a "public use".
Quit apologizing for him. I'm not saying he did anything illegal, but it was certainly wrong and immoral.
“There is a difference between eminent domain and the New London case.”
Could you please explain . A friend of mine in CT is now having reservations about Trump because of his stance on eminenty domain and brought up the Kelo case .
The last clause of the fifth amendment says:
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Until New London, this clause was generally considered to be defined as a government compensating a PRIVATE entity for the PUBLIC use of a property...and public use was meant to be for a road, school, community park, etc.
New London was a disastrous decision, because it meant that PRIVATE entities could have their property confiscated and given/sold/leased to ANOTHER PRIVATE entity.
Very very bad.
Trump, I assume, agrees with the New London decision.
This is an issue where Trump is very, very wrong in my opinion. It underpins the whole notion of private property and the dissents by the conservative justices on the SCOTUS were scathing. I believe I recall Justice Thomas saying he would look forward to getting a chance to overturn the decision.
Again, neither Trump or any other developer has the ability to forcefully take any private property. They must follow the process and a court of law will decide the matter. Eminent domain goes back to our founding fathers. It is in the Constitution. The Constiturion also makes provision for fair compensation but in practice, the compensation greatly exceeds market value.
Short story is that New London, CT is a depressed town that's lost most of its tax base and due to its geography, has nowhere to grow. It's a dying town, and about 18 years ago the City Managers there tried to lure Pfizer in with the promise to revamp a large section of coastal property that was depressed in exchange for them building a big plant.
The City was able to get most of the land that they wanted for the Pfizer project, but due to Pfizer's demands they needed to condemn a small neighborhood of mostly older and working class people, some of whom didn't want to sell.
They fought for years in court, and the New London City Managers' tactics to convince Kelo and the other owners to sell ranged from aggressive to pure evil.
The Clinton puppets Ginsberg and Breyer, along with Kennedy (one of the early cases that showed him to be a horrible justice), Souter, and Stevens all sided with the City, with Stevens writing the majority. What the case essentially meant was that any government entity, state, local, federal, could take anyone's property for any reason, and that the "public use" clause in the Constitution was so broad that the government could invent whatever justification they wanted for taking property, even if it meant taking property from a homeowner and giving it to a corporation and developer against the homeowner's will, as long as it meant increased tax revenue, economic growth, or any excuse they wanted. The majority even decided that the government doesn't have to actually prove that the economic development will happen, only that they have some plan in place, even if the plan is fantastical and stupid.
The city of New London won at the Supreme Court and they bulldozed Ms. Kelo's house, along with all of the others who didn't want to sell.
In the end what ended up happening is Pfizer pulled out and the development never happened. Also, the City Managers' "Development Plans" were exposed as fraudulent and essentially non-existent. So now the property where Suzette Kelo's house stood is an undeveloped vacant lot and the city continues to be broke and depressed.
The silver lining (if there was any) on the Kelo case was that the Supreme Court's decision was so wrong and evil that the public outcry started a massive wave of eminant domain reform at the state level, so Republicans and even some Democrats started passing anti-eminent domain abuse laws in the states that better dealt with the problem, even though city and local government bulldozing over people's property rights is still a huge problem in some areas.
I couldn't in good conscience support anyone in the primary who supported the Kelo decision, as like I said, it was at best an empowerment of the most aggressive type of big government, and at worst just plain evil.
If Trump supports the decision, he either doesn't understand Kelo and has never read it, or is of the philosophy that state, local, and federal government interests has the right to forcibly transfer property from one private entity to another for any reason the government sees fit.
A corporate development or private party is not a "public use", I don't care what John Paul Stevens says!
Trump never said eminent domain should be used “for any reason”.
Check out the thread. A lot of them either rationalize it or don't care. :(
Kelo = Takings for "any reason", so yes he does support taking property for any reason.
Any means of getting rid of this national malignancy would be welcome to me.
They seem to be rationalizing their hero’s behavior in a very creepy way.
Trump support is an actual cult to an alarming number of people, where you change your beliefs to fit the cult leader.
I wonder how many people on FR would support the government taking their guns as long as they are justly compensated?
Private property is private property. Rights are rights. The right to own a firearm assumes the right to own private property.
Totally disagree with him on this.
the words have different meanings. from cambridge.
Purpose: noun: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists: the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee the building is no longer needed for its original purpose
Use: noun: The action of using something or the state of being used for some purpose: a member of staff is present when the pool is in use theater owners were charging too much for the use of their venues
Railroads have a unique history in the US. but i do not believe that eminent domain can be used to transfer ownership from a citizen to another citizen. if it is taken by eminent domain is is available to be used by everyone. easements should be negotiable by the persons involved in the establishment of the easement. most utilities started out as private and worked thru the basic property rights associated. Gas companies ran pipes under streets etc because the streets had been taken by cities. Just beacuse it was done doesn’t make it right or constitutional.
Eminent domain for public roads, bridges, etc., is part of t he cost of citizenship.
Eminent domain for private developers to enhance their casinos is legalized theft at the point of the government’s gun.
The first is admitted by real conservatives as a necessary evil.
The second is endorsed by tyrants and would-be dictators.
A highway or school is a public use. A Pfizer plant in New London, CT or a limosuine parking lot for a billionaire's casino is NOT a public use.
The problem with Kelo is that it establishes that the Takings Clause has no limits whatsoever. In effect what that means is that the government can make up whatever excuse it wants to take your property. One of the definitions of tyranny is the inconsistency and caprice of its laws. By establishing no limits at all in Kelo, the decision allows government at all levels to make up whatever definitions they want for the word public use, and there is no legal process (at least at the federal level) to protest. By using the argument that creating jobs and increased tax revenue with new proprietors of the private property (as opposed to the rightful, original owners) is a public use gives all power to the state in an arbitrary and caprecious manner.
I can't believe we're have to rehash the demerits of Kelo 10 years after the fact to actual Freepers. I never thought the Trump phenomenom would turn so-called conservatives into low information voters, who don't know or don't care to actually research the case and its Constitutional justifications (or in this case, its lack thereof).
You don't seem to understand how the Constitution works.
It is not up to local governments to interpret the Bill of Rights as they see fit, and have local citizens decide what they want the Fifth Amendment to say. By this logic, each individual locality could decide what "the right to keep and bear arms" means, or set their own free speech and freedom of religion limits, just as long as they don't "get out of hand".
The Fifth Amendment has been part of the Incorporation Doctrine since the 1890s.
All of that does happen. Local gun control laws differ dramatically. Localities differ about how they handle free speech — protest permits for example, much easier some places than others. Some places are OK with expressions of freedom in the public square, others not as much. We’ve generally argued that the fact that San Francisco doesn’t want prayer in the schools or Nativity scenes on the City Hall lawn shouldn’t preclude Mobile from doing so. The Fifth Amendment requires that there be a public use. Localities can differ on how they define public use, but so long as a duly elected group makes a reasonable case that they are seeking to put the property to public use (and just compensation is paid), then the Supreme Court approves it. Always has.
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.