Posted on 08/09/2015 7:15:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a free market, there’s a pretty simple process for dealing with the situation that arises when one person covets another’s belongings: The coveter makes an offer to purchase them. If the offer is rebuffed, the coveter can make a new proposal, but he cannot simply take what he wants. It’s an effective way of recognizing the impracticality of the Tenth Commandment while enforcing the Eighth.
Donald Trump’s covetous nature is not in dispute, but what many may forget is that he’s no great respecter of the admonition not to steal, either: The man has a track record of using the government as a hired thug to take other people’s property. This is called, of course, “eminent domain.”
The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows the government to take private property for “public use,” so long as “just compensation” is paid. In the infamous 2005 Kelo decision, the Supreme Court held that “public use” could include, well, private use, so long as the new property owner paid more in taxes than the previous one. In other words, it allowed developers and the government to gang up on homeowners. The developer gets more land, the government gets more tax money. The only losers are the original owner and his property rights.
A decade and a half ago, it was fresh on everyone’s mind that Donald Trump is one of the leading users of this form of state-sanctioned thievery. It was all over the news. In perhaps the most-remembered example, John Stossel got the toupéed one to sputter about how, if he wasn’t allowed to steal an elderly widow’s house to expand an Atlantic City casino, the government would get less tax money, and seniors like her would get less “this and that.” Today, however, it takes a push from the Club for Growth to remind us of Trump’s lack of respect for property rights. The problem dates back to at least 1994.
That year, Trump promised to turn Bridgeport, Conn., into“a national tourist destination by building a $350 million combined amusement park, shipping terminal and seaport village and office complex on the east side of the harbor,” reported the Hartford Courant. “At a press conference during which almost every statement contained the term ‘world class,’ Trump and Mayor Joseph Ganim lavished praise on one another and the development project and spoke of restoring Bridgeport to its glory days.”
The wrinkle? “Five businesses and the city-owned Pleasure Beach now occupy the land,” as the Courant put it. The solution? “The city would become a partner with Trump Connecticut Inc. and obtain the land through its powers of condemnation. Trump would in turn buy the land from the city.” Here’s how the story concluded: “The entire development would cost the city nothing, Trump said, and no private homeowners would be affected because there are no dwellings on the land. Trump would own everything.”
That brings us to the story of the aforementioned elderly widow in Atlantic City, which starts at about the same time. The woman, Vera Coking, had owned property near the Trump Plaza Hotel for three decades, and didn’t want to move. Trump thought the land was better suited for use as a park, a parking lot, and a waiting area for limousines. He tried to negotiate, at one point offering Coking $1 million for the land. But she wasn’t budging. So New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit, instructing Coking to leave within 90 days and offering compensation of only $251,000. Perhaps the only upside to this story is that in neither case did Trump succeed.
The Bridgeport plan fizzled. Coking fought in court, and — in part because these were the days before Kelo was decided, no doubt — she was lucky enough to win. In 1998, a judge threw out the case. In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.
Can Republicans support someone with so little regard for the property of others? Let’s hope not.
— Robert VerBruggen is an associate editor of National Review.
RE: Nice diversion!
NOPE, NOT a DIVERSION, it is answering your statement that he made this support as a private citizen.
RE: You simply will not address your blatant hypocrisy and double standard.
NOW THAT’S WHAT I CALL A NICE DIVERSION. Why can’t you defend what Trump supported at all?
RE: My comments about Cruz are perfectly relevant to this discussion and you know it.
And my comments about Trump is also perfectly relevant to this discussion.
As for Ted Cruz, here is what really happened:
Ted Cruz is reversing his position on a major trade bill, calling it a “corrupt” backdoor deal between Republican leaders and the White House.
The Texas firebrand and Republican 2016 presidential hopeful had been a vocal supporter of trade legislation, even co-authoring a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April saying that the fast-track bill, known as Trade Promotion Authority, is a “fair deal” for the American worker. In May, he voted to advance the TPA bill, which also included a worker aid package favored by Democrats.
But just hours before a decisive Tuesday vote, Cruz is changing his tune. He says he will vote to block the TPA bill, citing a series of deals between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Democrats — namely over an unrelated issue dealing with the Export-Import Bank. He also contends that a separate trade deal being worked out by Obama could change immigration laws and not give Congress a say.
“Enough is enough,” Cruz said. “I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired.”
The announcement is significant because free-trade proponents have no margin for error. They cannot lose more than three Senate votes from last May on the procedural motion to end debate on the TPA bill. If they do, the fast-track bill could die — and with it, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the most sweeping trade bill in history.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ted-cruz-no-support-tpa-trade-bill-119319.html#ixzz3iNUF6P2C
This thread is about Donald Trump. If you wish to shift the focus on Ted Cruz, why don’t you open a separate thread about him and the TPA and TPP so that we can discuss it...
There’s no hypocrisy or diversion here. Just making a suggestion if you want to MAXIMIZE the “who is better for America, Cruz or Trump” issue.
And Cruz was for TPP before he was against it.
Trump was a private citizen, Cruz is a Republican Senator. Just sayin’.
BTW, keep up telling the truth about Trump!
I love watching the heads of Trump supporters explode as they try to justify his Left wing policies
:-)
.
If you want to know what Cruz thinks, read his book (as soon as you learn how)
.
RE: Ah, so Cruz can change positions on an issue, but Trump cannot? got it.
OK, show me that Trump has changed his position on that issue...
Where since 2011 has he said he changed his position?
How’s it a hit piece? Trump states “100% support” to the Kelo decision.
Artcore,
Again, like most of the Trumpers, you’d do well to stop being so ignorant.
TPP wasn’t supported by Cruz. You want to try again?
BTW, Trump was for gun control, before he was against it.
Trump was for abortion, before he was against it.
Trump was for Hillary before he was sort of against her.
Trump was for Obamacare, before he was against it.
Trump was for hiring illegals, before he was against it.
Trump was for Kelo...oh, wait...
Just saying
I’ve been informed that we have to keep the Meaghan Kelly thing going because if we don’t deport illegals America will die.
It doesn’t make any sense to me but I suspect its really about talking about anything other than Trump’s record.
.
>> “Mr Trump is different.” <<
.
Yep, he is the ultimate way of voting for Hitlery while saying you voted for someone else.
.
RE: Trump was a private citizen, Cruz is a Republican Senator. Just sayin’.
Trump’s business was INVOLVED in the decision. Just saying.
I know two unrelated and sucessful business people who said out of the blue in casual conversation that Trump’s books helped them. That’s all I need to know.
LOL. good point.
Oh, but you forgot to say that if you question the Donald, you do so because you secretly work for Jeb...
Is it your take eminent domain should never be used?
Wow, a book helped them.
Gee, all the more reason to support someone.
Guess if the Communist Manifesto helped them too, you’d feel the same way?
But, I know, I know Trump is America’s savior, Megyn Kelly is the Devil, blah, blah, blah..,
But apparently you don’t know that criminal aliens have been murdering, raping and robbing Americans. Literally no “conservative” candidate gave a flip about sanctuary cities and deportable criminal aliens being released until Trump blew up the issue.
So what? She didn’t want to sell — that home had been owned by her family for decades, but Trump chose not to respect her decision. Instead the a**hole dragged her to court.
I’m amazed how you people rationalize Trump’s actions.
I love watching the heads of Trump supporters explode as they try to justify his Left wing policies
:-)
_______________________________________
Speaking of heads exploding:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3322734/posts
:-D
Who's OK with government seizing private property from private citizens for private purposes.
Yeah I even had some idiot who signed up less than a month ago call me a liberal troll the other day. LOL
The sad part is the longtime FReepers who happily cheered him on. (one did point out that I was only disagreeing and had proven my credibility many times over)
RE: Is it your take eminent domain should never be used?
Case by case and in the case of Kelo, it SHOULD NOT have been used.
The Fifth Amendment Public Use Clause authorizes a city to exercise its eminent domain power only “for public use.” Yet, in Kelo the court permitted a city to transfer one homeowner’s property to another private party as long as there would be some future “public benefit.”
The perceived injustice of allowing the government to transfer a citizen’s perfectly well-kept land to a corporation for its own use generated dismay and anger throughout the public and resulted in a host of state constitutional amendments and other takings restrictions.
Ten years later, the case’s reputation is no less notorious. In a recent legal memo, “Revisiting Kelo,” The Heritage Foundation documents the confluence of errors in the Kelo decision and sketches where we can expect to go from here.
READ ABOUT IT HERE:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/06/revisiting-kelo
Kelo also erred in treating the concept of “public use” as “public purpose.” The memorandum emphasizes that, because the court did not address a Public Use Clause question until late in the 19th century, it did not have the opportunity to articulate a well-developed theory of the meaning of the Public Use Clause that was grounded in the Framers’ intent. The text of the Public Use Clause limits takings to situations in which land would be used by the general public or by its representative, the government. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has consistently read the term “public use” far more broadly as meaning mere public benefit.
Although the Supreme Court has continued to give lip-service to the proposition that the government may not take property from “A” simply to give it to “B,” the reality is that the court has never found a taking that fails the public benefit test.
The liberal wing of the Supreme Court voted FOR the Kelo decision while the conservative wing ( Scalia and Thomas included with Thomas writing the dissent ) voted AGAINST it.
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.