Posted on 02/15/2016 10:01:01 AM PST by GilGil
Former Governor Jeb Bush has a much more serious eminent domain problem to reconcile than current media reports are discussing.
During his tenure as Florida Governor Bush initiated the largest eminent domain private property confiscation in the history of the Sunshine State.
Bush’s action is now costing the State of Florida hundreds of millions in lawsuits and legal fees.
During a period from mid-2000 to January 2006 the Florida Department of Agriculture, at the direction of Governor Jeb Bush, began a program to seize and destroy citrus trees from Florida residents. Former Governor Jeb Bush has a much more serious eminent domain problem to reconcile than current media reports are discussing...
As voters in New Hampshire heard on Saturday night, Jeb Bush believes it a horrible thing to seize property from private citizens; yet history would reflect when Jeb Bush himself was governor of the state of Florida – not only did he order seizures, by force, but Bush also refused to reimburse the residents for the property he unlawfully ordered to be removed and destroyed.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Jeb is going to get this story shoved right down his hypocritical weasel throat. Sniveling RINO Rump swab that he is - along with the entire Bush Clan.
Umm, Jeb has an eminent domain problem just like Trump, so we should vote for Trump, but not Bush?
Trumpian logic. Ya gotta love it!
You are going to make the Bushbots go crazy.
I bet many of the defenders are CLOSET JEBBY fans.
It was ruled unconstitutional.
Oh, and what of the vet’s land that Jeb, and his environmentalist ‘UN-Agenda 21’ cronies, used ED against? Oh, yeah, that’s right - it’s OK when an GOP establishment jackass does it “to reinvigorate the wetlands” ... Take away a disabled vet’s home and land - so to expand a freaking swamp? That’s just fine and dandy with GOP establishment supporters.
Trump is not the guy who first brought up the ED issue ...
The point is “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”
But then, I would not expect a Cruz suckwad to get that point.
Cruz lied about Canadian citizenship.
It really bothers me the more I think about it. He’ll not get my vote.
At this point, it is Trump, Carson, or Rubio.
Cruz is out for me.
How so?
Being that through his mother he was a U.S. citizen at birth regardless of where on earth he was born, what bestowal of Canadian citizenship upon himself was there -- other than through jur soli (of the soil -- aka within the territory of) considerations?
How Canada, internally within that nation deals with that, I admit to have not examined at authoritative source, yet I do know that it is well established within U.S. law and precedent that when an individual fits criteria to have U.S. citizenship from birth, whatever laws there may be of foreign nations regarding that same individual's citizenship status within those foreign provinces or kingdoms, are (generally speaking) to none effect to that individual's status of U.S. citizen.
See the U.S. Supreme Court majority decision for Wong Kim Ark and I'm sure that you'd readily see what I mean, although that case was focused upon a son born within the United States of Chinese parents.
As for Cruz, his father perhaps had only tenuous Canadian citizenship claims at time of his birth (I further admit I do not know just what Cruz's father's status was within Canada, at time of the now Senator Cruz's birth within territory of Canada) and previously had status within the U.S. as a refugee, having received political asylum, I take it.
It's as likely as not that Cruz grew up all his life thinking only upon his own personal U.S. citizenship, not thinking much upon himself having possible claim to Canadian citizenship.
He was brought from Canada (by his mother) to the United States when he was only 4 years old, wasn't he?
And so all his life would have been told that he was an American citizen, told that quite likely, originally, by his mother.
That would be fitting, for it was from his mother that the now Senator Cruz's U.S. citizenship is derived.
So how again did Cruz "lie" as you put it?
He said he found out about a year and a half ago reading the Dallas Morning News that he has Canadian citizenship.
I don’t believe him. It’s that simple.
He’s a super lawyer, a Harvard prodigy, and celebrated solicitor who successfully argued before the supreme court, a us senator with a huge staff, and a man pondering a presidential run.
He also had his Canadian birth certificate IN HIS OWN HANDS.
Even before he found out and the Dallas morning news reported it, we here on FR had it figured out after an hour or two of googling Canadian citizenship law.
I don’t believe that a super-lawyer like him didn’t know it. Not with a birth certificate in his own hands. No way. Zilch.
It’s easier to believe he’s lying than to believe he didn’t know.
What about when Bush took a disable vet’s land for the environmentalists? Or the Bush family used ED to build their stadium.
What about when JEB used Eminent Domain to cut down everybody’s citrus trees? There are still lawsuits agains’t the state of Florida for that little misstep of justice.
You provided no link. Uh, I think you owed me one, for just a few hours ago I provided multiple link for yourself and another who had failed to provide source for what he was quoting word-for-word. Neither of the two of you gave any acknowledgement that I had done so...
But I can go look it up, to see whatever was said in context, and then should search a bit further than the Dallas Morning News, for I do have just cause for being not willing to take the Dallas Morning News as last word on anything, particualrly in regards to a conservative who they would love to cause harm to by adding to, inflating whatever could be puffed up and then presented in a biased manner.
That article would have had element of slant that skewed things, if they could have done that to make Cruz look bad (and get away with it). I was raised in the D-FW area, and so am acquainted with that publication...
As JimRob said of that newspaper on a recent thread; bird-cage liner, though I'd be willing to bet that the clock-boy series of stories has something to do with him saying that (and Mr. Robinson's comment not be necessarily include however it was they reported on Senator Cruz in regards to what we're talking about right here).
It’s easier to believe he’s lying than to believe he didn’t know.
So now it is you believing that he quote-unquote "lied" about it.
As far as I know, Cruz's life-long focus has been upon U.S. law, not Canadian law.
As it stands, since that Canadian citizenship would come about under Canadian law ---not under U.S. law and Constitutional traditions as those have played out historically within legislative and judiciary branches of U.S. government-- I personally do not find it impossible that; being as the now Senator from Texas has been such a devout student and admirer of the U.S. Constitution (there is no challenge to that, is there?) whatever status he may have had as Canadian citizen was in something of a blind spot to himself. And if not entirely not contemplated, then regarded as superfluous, not germane to his own status of U.S. citizenship acquired at birth, from his mother.
All his life (of what has been established well enough to accept) his allegiance and devotions have been towards the United States, himself being a citizen of the U.S. through the grace of past Acts of Congress having set stage for his own father to have received asylum, having fled an oppressive communist regime, and that same Congress having finally gotten around to (prior to his own birth) returning to recognizing that what such as Vattel wrote of regarding allegiances and citizenship be conveyed from father to children, include also conveyance from a mother to her own children equal to past paternal-alone considerations.
In effect, this would have made the man -- when just a lad and first becoming acquainted with the Constitution doubly grateful for being born classified as citizen of the United States from birth, himself possibly not taking that for granted so to speak, as do many Americans -- hence these considerations I've last mentioned being among causes for his lifelong dedication to the Constitution.
Personally, from what I've heard of Cruz's formal disavowal towards any citizenship status possibly recognized by Canada in regards to himself, the action that he took was prophylactic -- shutting off that possibility that he would somehow secretly within himself see himself as being Canadian.
There is abundant evidence (if but somewhat anecdotal remembrances of an assortment of individuals whom have been acquainted with the Senator during his lifetime) that his self-identification has always been U.S. citizen, having nowhere that has thus far come to light ever attempted to lay claim towards Canadian citizenship.
That may or may not matter to how Canada would have viewed persons in similar circumstances as Ted Cruz, but from U.S. law perspective, there are indeed residency requirements that must be met in order for Cruz to have retained the U.S. citizenship which he was born with. Those requirement were met long ago, when Cruz was still a minor.
You’re right. I owe you. I’m doing this on my cell phone so it’s a pain. It was planned parenthood wasn’t it? I will get back with you.
“It wasn’t using government power to support his private business by seizing land for the business, which is what Trump did.”
Not true. The proposed parking structure was not just for Trump’s use.
After reviewing what I wrote in reply, I see I missed a logic sequence. It's not the Dallas Morning News I would need to consult as primary source for Cruz's initial comments in response to a DMN article about ramifications of his being born in Canada (in regards to the consequence of that leading to Cruz having qualified for Canadian citizenship).
You had related that Ted Cruz had somewhere (you didn't say where, it may take some effort to track down a primary source which other news outlets and commentators afterwards re-told) was reported to have said that he wasn't aware that he (technically?) held Canadian citizenship, in addition to U.S. citizenship, and had been quoted as having allegedly become aware of that fact when coming across an article in the Dallas Morning News.
Which means that it doesn't matter that the DMN is a lousy source. What I'd need to find (and may look around for myself, later, you don't really need to feel entirely obliged) is what was THE primary source for what Cruz had gone on record as saying in reply, after the DMN published the first article.
To restate the point; what we need is Cruz's initial reply, or replies (revised and extended comments, lol).
It would be interesting to review to see if he was "lying" or if in more limited way just thought by some people to be lying (which is a little different, but can be overlapping subsets, whatever the actual truth of the matter is).
What doesn't make any sense to me would be that the guy would have been going along all his life -- if knowing that he was technically a Canadian citizen in addition to being a full-fledged United States citizen (not "naturalized", but by birth) and have not told anyone, or gone to Canada and investigated the laws there and had gotten official documentation in recognition of the fact, etc., if he had anything like lifelong awareness of the fact, in spite of knowing he was born in Canada and had a Canadian birth certificate.
Most nations do not share with the United States identical citizenship and naturalization laws. As for providing recognition of citizenship for reasons of jur soli considerations alone, my own thinking has always been along lines that the USA was about the only nation on earth which did so.
If Cruz was similarly less-than perfectly well informed of what Canadian laws there were about this, I'm willing to extend to him at least some measure of what's commonly referred to benefit of the doubt.
LOL!
The wealth and power of the Bush clan comes from its crony connections, which is why they have such an affinity for the Mexican culture and its Patron system.
.
What land did Trump seize?
The greedy old lady to which you refer refused to sell even after Trump offered $2 million for her property.
She eventually settled for about $500,000 with the next owners of the property.
So I ask you again: what land did Trump “seize?”
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.