Posted on 02/07/2016 5:38:59 PM PST by Helicondelta
Let us all hope the good people of New Hampshire spot the insufferable and poorly briefed politicians who want to lead the nation.
In a recent South Carolina GOP debate Jeb Bush talked about trade with China and showed how much he relies on briefings by his team to create his talking points. Bush did not realize Boeing was moving a manufacturing plant to China, and with it American Jobs - SEE HERE
Bush v Trump
Similarly, last night in New Hampshire, to bolster his propositions about eminent domain, Governor Jeb Bush made the gobsmacking assertion the Keystone Pipeline project was a "public use" project.
It isn't.
The Keystone pipeline is entirely a private corporation, a private energy firm, seeking federal permission to build a North American pipeline. There is nothing about the Keystone Pipeline that is a "public use" project, it is a "private use" project.
The U.S. government has no ownership stake in the project whatsoever. Watch:
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
John Ellis believes he’s entitled to the White House.
I have a cat brighter than John Ellis.
iYeb! is a yutz
He and most others in the GOP field simply do not know the business of this country.
Cruz, who knows better, continues to lie about eminent domain in his stump speeches. Courts continuously hold that ‘public interest’ is enough for use of eminent domain.
This is the great political knowledge and experience we’re supposed to defer to:
GO TRUMP!
It is for infrastructure and national security.
So this Sundance clown opposes state Takings for private benefit right? In the debate Trump said eminent domain should be used to “build factories”. I oppose all Takings for private benefit. You, Trump and Sundance? Not so much.
So Bush is correct? Lol.
Protip: don’t look to a blog to provide you with constitutional law advice.
Pipelines which transport products (oil, gas, water, etc.) on behalf of other parties and who submit themselves to the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies are considered common carriers which are entitled to condemn easements under the law of eminent domain, even if the pipeline company is private. Just like railroads—which ship products for the owners of those products—have the right to condemn private property to construct their tracks (paying just compensation to the owners whose land is taken). These are considered takings of property for the public good—they allow the shipments of goods by common carriers and are therefore considered to be for a public purpose..
What has historically not been allowed is taking property for a private purpose (Kelo), where, e.g., a company is allowed to condemn property because it will put it to a “higher use”: turn vacant land or low value improved property into a much more valuable property by making new improvements (e.g., build a mall). That type of takings only benefits the party conducting the condemnation and not the public at large. However, several local governments have backed this type of eminent domain to increase their property tax base and bring in more property tax revenue.
It takes a village idiot..
Excellent summary statement of the distinction between traditional eminent domain versus the Kelo mutation. This is what distressed me so much during the NH debate. Trump was conflating the old and the new as if they were the same. They are not. Addressing a tangible public need, energy for example, through a quasi-governmental use of private actors falls within the traditional meaning of the “public use” clause. Kelo using municipal power to destroy homestead dwellings of good quality, on the empty speculation that maybe different private owners would raise more taxes, was a serious deviation from “public use” as previously understood.
It really attacks the 5th Amendment by removing the takings clause from its common law context, which was foundational to the American idea of freedom, that we could protect our property from seizure by the government unless certain stiff criteria were met. Under Kelo, a man’s home is no longer his castle. It’s just a rental unit that can be taken by the government for virtually no reason at all. Kelo is a product of the New Deal derogation of private property, a success story for a progressive theory of the power of the collective over the private individual. That any candidate claiming to be conservative supports Kelo reflects that either A) the candidate does not understand the Constitution well enough to protect it, or B) they understand the progressive roots of Kelo and are comfortable with the loss of individual liberty Kelo represents.
Peace,
SR
“That type of takings only benefits the party conducting the condemnation and not the public at large.”
The tourists staying at the hotel and the businesses flourishing around the hotel would probably disagree.
And apparently Jeb doesn’t even know that his own family used eminent domain to build a baseball park.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3394052/posts?page=2
Thank you both for the discourse.
Trump made the lady an offer for the house and she refused to sell.
The city took her to court arguing that the house was a blight on the neighborhood, but she won and kept the house.
I fail to see the problem here. Trump had a legitimate business interest in the expansion of his hotel. As president, this is not an issue that will ever come across his desk.
I do have a problem however with the Cruz ad showing Trump bulldozing the old lady’s house. The ad is obviously a lie and Cruz is obviously dishonest. He did approve that “message”.
They're business deals. The buyers offer a higher price than market value. The owners can always say no.
What's the difference between it being a public or private enterprise ? The private enterprise always offers a more generous amount.
The sad part about ED is, that most people don't understand it at all. The propaganda: "OH THE POOR DEFENSELESS WOMAN"...blah, blah...blah!
An a private company isn't going to FORCE someone out; whilst a government entity is far more likely to do just that!
And before you begin some dumb rant at me...YES. MY FAMILY'S PROPERTY, ALLBEIT SEVERAL GENERATIONS AGO, DID SELL THEIR PROPERTY AND MY HEART SWELLS EVERY TIME I SEE OR GO OVER THAT BRIDGE; IT'S MINE!
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.