The stipulation: “The Constitution also provides that property can be taken with due process of law and just compensation, and with respect to securing the borders, it is a national security issue,” Cruz said.
South Carolinans don't like Lawyer talk
Public use v. Private use. This is comparing apples to oranges.
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.
ping
You left out the part where he’s for eminent domain to secure the border.
Thanks for reminding us that Cruz was for building a wall long before it was a glimmer in Trump’s eye.
. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As such, the use of eminent domain for building a wall along the border with Mexico is perfectly constitutional as long as the owners of any properties taken in order to build the wall are paid just compensation.
It is kind of embarrassing that many American citizens are not aware of the distinction between takings intended for the benefit of the public (such as a border wall) and takings intended for the benefit of a private owner (such as a casino operator).
The fence /wall would be a legitimate public use.
The pipeline would not be obviously legitimate.
Then if your trying to say that Ted Cruz supports eminent domain like Trump you have failed to grasp the point Cruz took. Under the Constitution, the Federal government under certain circumstances to promote the General Welfare, Common Defense, or Domestic Tranquility, through legal due process can take land for federal use. This is drastically different from Trumps assertion, that for the betterment of business interests of a few, special interests of one party or another, or the betterment of government interests. That you can take someones property. The main difference is that Cruz’s option is covered and legal under our Constitution, while Trumps version is not. Big difference, and if you are going to put things on and have headlines that say one thing, and articles that say the opposite. At least post enough of the article so that we can know that the Headline is wrong.
All Trump has to do is show that one of Cruz’s promises is to approve the Keystone Pipeline, which would be impossible without eminent domain.
Also:
Most all Eminent Domain is used against Private Landowners.
The issue not taking OF private owner but FOR private purpose:
It's not that hard, think 3rd grade class, which one doesn't belong:
Border Wall for national security
Bridge for evacuating island
Tacky Hotel parking Garage
Pipeline for National resources
The constitution calls for eminent domain with just compensation for national security infrastructure like a border wall. Not for private sector casinos.
Next?
UNbelievably disengenuous representation of the facts worthy of the Clintons.
Only an ignoramus or a twit would put out this article.
Border security versus limousine parking lot (that was destined to become more hotel rooms because Trump isn’t a chump). How do you completely ignore the difference in public benefit between the two situations?
And where in the constitution does it cover ZONING LAWS?
Because LOGICALLY if you are opposed to eminent domain you must also be opposed to zoning laws.
Here is a quote from the Ted Cruz Facebook webpage, bragging that he is a co-sponsor of the Keystone Pipeline. How can you be for building the Keystone Pipeline, but against eminent domain?
“Passing the Keystone pipeline is a good start, but we need a job-creating energy agenda, far broader. The energy revolution that is already underway can produce the jobs and opportunities that our country needs to grow. All the federal government needs to do is get out of the way and let Americans do what they do best: dream, innovate, and prosper.”
Sen Cruz Files Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Amendments
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today introduced three pro-growth, pro-jobs amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, of which Sen. Cruz is a cosponsor.
https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/676783042433999
If this thread has taught me one thing, it’s that Ted Cruz hates sports venues.
LOL
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.
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.
OK. So now we know that a lot of FReepers have no idea what the Kelo decision was about. It was worth posting this for that alone.