Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck

Yup, but causes trouble if you believe public use clause cannot involve transfer of private property to other private individual.


213 posted on 10/06/2015 9:05:35 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies ]


To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

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.


218 posted on 10/06/2015 9:16:12 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson