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

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz Was Asked Three Years Ago About the ‘Liberty’ of Private Landowners in Eminent Domain
The Blaze ^ | February 10, 2016 | Jon Street

Posted on 02/11/2016 4:06:19 PM PST by kiryandil

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-127 next last
To: gg188

Zoning is a taking. I agree. But I don’t want a cheap Deliverance house in my neighborhood, either. It lowers the value of my property.


61 posted on 02/11/2016 5:09:05 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: qman

sorry forgot sarc tag


62 posted on 02/11/2016 5:11:22 PM PST by NoDRodee (U>S>M>C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Trump should have built all around her and just left her to meet the new tax rates and lot requirements. After all, it was his property.


63 posted on 02/11/2016 5:12:04 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

If this thread has taught me one thing, it’s that Ted Cruz hates sports venues.

LOL


64 posted on 02/11/2016 5:12:16 PM PST by 20yearsofinternet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 20yearsofinternet

And shopping malls


65 posted on 02/11/2016 5:13:27 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Eminent domain has historically been used for a public use, not a private use. Roads, railroads, and pipelines are public uses. A wall to secure the border would be a public use.

Condemning a neighbor’s property so I can use it for a swimming pool and picnic area is not a public use and should not be allowed under eminent domain. Condemning private property so I can put in an auto parts store is not a public use.

You get the distinction.


66 posted on 02/11/2016 5:20:55 PM PST by SharpRightTurn (White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Trump should have built all around her and just left her to meet the new tax rates and lot requirements. After all, it was his property."

Bob Guccione did just that.

67 posted on 02/11/2016 5:21:16 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: r_barton
How can you be for building the Keystone Pipeline, but against eminent domain?

Excellent point.

68 posted on 02/11/2016 5:21:58 PM PST by kiryandil ("Our Muslim-In-Chief, Barack Obama - the Quislaming in the White House")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

The question isn’t whether we get it, does Cruz get it? And the answer is, no.


69 posted on 02/11/2016 5:22:51 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

Did she have to pay and meet new zoning requirements?


70 posted on 02/11/2016 5:22:52 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: austinaero
And a parking lot is not used by the public and it's tax revenues are not used by the public?

A parking lot owned by Trump with the revenue going to Trump is NOT a public use. In the Constitution, public use refers to projects owned and operated by the government for the benefit of the public - roads, airports, post offices, public buildings, libraries, etc. It does NOT refer to projects owned and operated by private parties for the benefit of their investors, in the pursuit of additional tax revenue.

The fact that you have such a hard time grasping this does not speak well of your understanding of the Constitution.

71 posted on 02/11/2016 5:23:03 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It was not a residential house. It was a dilapidated boarding house, so was already a business.


72 posted on 02/11/2016 5:24:46 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

But I imagine that the zoning requirements changed.


73 posted on 02/11/2016 5:26:56 PM PST by xzins (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: qman

Yes, and support for the border wall was part of Cruz’s Senate campaign back in 2012.


74 posted on 02/11/2016 5:27:26 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder; kiryandil
Couldn't add that extra sentence huh? Who would have thought that Cruz agreed with eminent domain for the very narrow and public purposes defined in the constitution.

You shouldn't expect honor and principle from some of the Trump supporters; look how their candidate behaves.
75 posted on 02/11/2016 5:28:51 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: moehoward
“The question isn,t whether we get it, does Cruz get it? And the answer is, no."

The answer is “yes”, Moe, Cruz gets it. You might not like Cruz, you may not like his positions, you may think he is not an authentic conservative but actually a left of center pretender, but I can assure you that Cruz has the niceties of eminent domain down pat, just as he does with virtually every constitutional issue.

76 posted on 02/11/2016 5:38:46 PM PST by SharpRightTurn (White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Beats me. It’s basically a small crappy hotel without a gaming license.


77 posted on 02/11/2016 5:40:31 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Conflating eminent domain for public use (taking land to build a border wall) with eminent domain for private use (taking land to build a shopping Mall) is a serious flaw in this criticism. This is exactly the error they make when they treat opposition to illegal immigration as opposition to all immigration. Some people lie to win.

Note: I prefer Cruz to Trump, but I have systematically defended both from dishonest attacks like this one. I prefer both Cruz and Trump by a huge margin over every other viable candidate (treating Rubio, Kasich, and even poor, lost Jeb as if they all might be viable), but I would defend even Jeb and Rubio against unfair attacks.


78 posted on 02/11/2016 5:40:46 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Public purpose is not public use.


79 posted on 02/11/2016 5:45:15 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

Good. Then you acknowledge Cruz supports EC as long as its a jobs program. Which means Cruz is for the same thing he’s attacking Trump for in his silly ad.


80 posted on 02/11/2016 5:50:35 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-127 next last

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.

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