Posted on 10/06/2015 5:48:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
RE: Do people here expect a President Trump to issue an EO like Obama does and make Eminent Domain just go away? How about all the other Republicans, will they do it?
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.
The case may have been over, just like the SCOTUS decision about gay marriage is over, that does not mean that a Presidential candidate cannot speak out against it.
To even SUPPORT the decision AFTER THE FACT simply shows what the candidate believes about the limits of the power of government.
In this, I’m afraid Trump fails miserably.
RE: Aren’t you a paid DC establishment poster who peddles the garbage from Salem Media , which peddles the Rubio, Bush,and Carly propaganda ?
Before you accuse me of anything, I want you to tell me if this report is true or false.
if true, then I am NOT peddling garbage. If false, yes and I should apologize but not until.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 'taking' of private property is allowed (under the 5th) if it is justly compensated
That's all I know
This from Legal Information Istitute:
Just Compensation Clause
While the federal government has a constitutional right to "take" private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property's good and bad attributes, would pay. The government does not have to pay a property owner's attorney's fees, however, unless a statute so provides.
In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a controversial opinion in which they held that a city could constitutionally seize private property for private commercial development. 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
RE: When you get 10 20 times what your house is worth who can be against it?
It is and should be a FREE decision made by the potential seller and nobody, much less the government using the power of coercion should decide for the property owner.
It’s provided for in the Constitution. Government can take your property provided it’s for a public purpose and you are paid just compensation. If the Founders were OK with that, so am I.
RE: I cannot understand what the controversy is. Eminent Domain is in the Constitution. Trump has no control over Eminent Domain. All our highways have been built as a result of Eminent Domain.
The intended purpose of eminent domain, is to allow government to acquire properties for true public uses like a highway ( as you mentioned) or a school or critical public infrastructure or defense of the nation.
The Kelo decision that Trump still says he supports DID NONE OF THAT.
It opened the door to even more eminent domain mischief. Eminent domain was already a useful tool for the politically friendly developer, who is only too happy to enlist the force of government to aggregate properties that are difficult to acquire one by one.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the city, but the minority (Justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist) wrote extremely heated dissenting opinions. Thomas warned: “Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.”
As it turned out, the City of New London’s great economic plan never came to fruition and the properties it seized stand 13 years later as a huge vacant lot, after the city and state governments blew $78 million bulldozing the properties.
THAT is what you should understand as to why this is a controversy.
RE: It’s provided for in the Constitution. Government can take your property provided it’s for a public purpose and you are paid just compensation. If the Founders were OK with that, so am I.
The intended purpose of eminent domain, is to allow government to acquire properties for true public uses like a highway ( as you mentioned) or a school or critical public infrastructure or defense of the nation.
The Kelo decision that Trump still says he supports DID NONE OF THAT.
It opened the door to even more eminent domain mischief. Eminent domain was already a useful tool for the politically friendly developer, who is only too happy to enlist the force of government to aggregate properties that are difficult to acquire one by one.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the city, but the minority (Justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist) wrote extremely heated dissenting opinions. Thomas warned: “Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.”
As it turned out, the City of New London’s great economic plan never came to fruition and the properties it seized stand 13 years later as a huge vacant lot, after the city and state governments blew $78 million bulldozing the properties.
THAT is what you should understand as to why this is a controversy.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158–164
heart of the case change the meaning of the word is.
RE: If they offered you 3x what your homestead was worth would you take it???
I would. But it is none of the government’s business whether I decide to say yes or no to the offer.
If I value my property more than the intended use of it by the one who offered money for it, why should government coerce me to sell?
.
Keep on blabbering Donald.
Your panties are showing, and your fly is unzipped.
.
I would take the million and keep my car. But I would not want to be forced to do it. Plus, I do not think people are getting 10X the value for their property.
I say his blabbering is a good thing.
He’s opening himself up for vetting. I give him credit for it.
Do you have to pay higher property taxes because of your location?
That's Trump's hurdle here.
“Increased [tax] revenue is not a public good.”
You say it, you own it
i’m ok with that endorsement.
Not eminent domain in of itself, but its overbearing use - such as what occurred in the wretched Kelo v. Connecticut case where it was stated it could be used to take private property away not for public use, but to give to wealthier owner who wants it if the owner does not want to sell because it might bring in more tax revenue for the government. However, since Trump supports that decision and this total misuse eminent domain power, as you can see, they are all for it - they probably opposed it like the rest of us five seconds before it was brought to light that Trump supported it - now Kelo v. Connecticut is good, because Trump supports it. Just like Planned Parenthood funding became good after Trump came out in favor of it and won praise from the organization, 'universal healthcare' and host of other statist / liberal causes - now if you continue to hold the same positions these same Trump supporters also held, you are now an 'apologist for the GOPe' and "deranged" critic of Trump.
public use of no mans land should be maybe easier. it’s might be 10 20 30 40 feet encroachment? let the land owners vote on it. and we all would gain like a sewer or a utility easement.
When you get 10 20 times what your house is worth who can be against it?>>>>>
the owner
death penalty>>>>
minent domain even in rare instances when it is necessary for public use. But there is no excuse for it when the point is just more tax dollars or even more jobs.>>>
I think you were a writer of the constitution. your feelings are why the words are there.
Don't worry. I saw the interview.
The family will get 4x, 5x, or 10x the value of the property and be able to buy a better place for less right around the corner.
It will be awesome. I can't wait.
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.