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.
.
Cruz and Palin have both pledged to refrain from attacks on others in the party.
You’ll hear nothing from them, because it would dull their own messages to do so.
Cruz has a message; the only one that is well thought out; and that is all you will hear from him.
.
I only call trolls out to be trolls.
You’re in a very special group.
.
“Liberals” are those who hate those mean conservatives.
“It amazes me how many on FR have bought into the Trump mania without thinking about what they are doing. A certain President of ours talked all pretty-like too...
Anyway, it also amazed me how many Trump supporters will NOT dispute or disprove things like this eminent domain issue..but rather, will call it a “it piece” or call the author names.”
I agree. It is disturbing.
He said it much better than I did.
This SCt decision was so onerous to private property that many conservative state legislatures, including Texas I’m proud to say, changed their laws to prevent it from occurring in their state.
I agreed with our Texas legislators. This was BIG GOVERNMENT working with CRONY CAPITALISM. You can’t spin it any other way.
It’s easy to see why Trump would love the decision as it could help his real estate empire if he can get the local government to take away individual’s homes and businesses in order to build one of his huge projects with tax shelters from government.
You Trumpsters will have to rationalize this one if you can.
AMEN!
They NEVER respond to what people say...you know why? Because, to do so, would be to admit they are supporting a DNC hack.
Great post!
Most of the pro Trump argument is based on false premise to begin with. Things like “FOX hates Trump and wants to take him out”.
It completely ignores the fact that Donald Trump had a weekly call in segment on FOX and Friends till very recently. FOX hated him so much that they actually set aside a few minutes every week to let him flap his gums.
Its no less likely that Trump is in on the game with FOX to maniulate the race.
Ok....I’ll take that. Apologies.
[BTW, my “Bear Loads” are Bitterroot Valley 45LC 300 grain Bearloads for my Winchester 1892 Trapper Takedown. Or just my Marlin 1985 GS 45-70 with 300 grain load. :0)]
Noting that the Founding States originally decided that the states didn’t have to respect the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court clarified in Barron v. Baltimore that prohibitions of government power in the Constitution apply only to the federal government, not to the states, unless such prohibitions specify the states. And here is how the Court accordingly interpreted the scope of the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment.
We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States [emphasis added].” — Barron v. Baltimore, 1833 .
The Constitution’s Clause 1 of Section 10 of Article I is an example of powers specifically prohibited to the states.
Low-information patriots are dealing with multiple lose canons with respect to what they perceive to be their “inalienable” constitutional rights, eminent domain controversies an example, because they are not being taught the Founding States' division of state and federal government powers as enumerated in the Constitution.
in fact, as much as citizens didn’t want to see Terri Schiavo starved to death, and with all due respect to Florida FReepers, I wouldn't be surprised if concerned citizens of Florida haven’t lifted a finger to work with their state lawmakers to make 10th Amendment-protected state laws which are more friendly to people like Terri because they still haven’t learned about the constitutional division of state and federal powers.
.
:o)
.
There seems to be no limit to that ability.
There seems to be no limit to that ability.
Wishful thinking.
Actually, there's no need for rationalization. You see, nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to agree with any candidate's position on every single issue.
Ted Cruz is a perfect example. I support him, yet I categorically disagreed with him on some issues relating to the recent trade agreement and the associated "fast track" authority thet proponents insisted was necessary.
Eminent domain might very well be one of several issues with which I vehemently disagree with Donald Trump.
That doesn't invalidate my agreement with him on other issues, nor does it imply that he would be a bad President.
Feel free to keep trying to cause turmoil, however. Trump's media detractors and their arch-conservative purist allies don't seem to have much else that is working.
I suspect that the reason for that is because an individual is much more than the sum of his various parts: personality, issue positions, prejudices, and so on.
If I believe a candidate truly loves his country, marches to the beat of his own drum, and will make good on some of his stated pledges, then I'm willing to overlook other areas where I might disagree.
Holding a certain opinion on eminent domain is not some kind of litmus test, last time I checked.
Personally, I think Ted Cruz would make a great President. But for different reasons, I happen to think that Donald Trump would also make a great President. Indeed, I wouldn't mind if they ran together, and I'm not going to get hysterical about which of them would appear at the top of the ticket.
One thing I am sure of, though, is that all the naysayers about Trump are seriously missing what's happening here. Trump is a candidate who can draw voters from many different points on the political spectrum, and that, in and of itself, has the makings of an electoral landslide. And any electoral landslide which obliterates the Democratic nominee will be an unqualified blessing.
I'd love to see some other GOP candidates, such as Cruz, catch fire. But if they don't, it's going to be Trump, and we could certainly do much worse, IMHO. Romney or McCain, for instance.
The "sky is falling" gnashing of teeth from both the lamestream media and hysterical conservative purists is truly entertaining, and I expect it to continue to be.
Go Cruz! But, if it's not him, then I say more power to Trump.
Anti-establishment, anti-uniparty, anti-PC is what is going to carry the day this time around. The silent majority will be heard.
Don't worry, you'll still be welcome even if you jump on the Trump bandwagon at the last minute. And, if it comes to that, you will jump on board.
Anybody but the Democratic nominee, Romney, Bush, or Graham will be acceptable to me. And this is coming from somebody who had Jeb as governor of my state.
Definitely agree with that.
There are still minimum standards of integrity and principles. Otherwise their stated positions can't be trusted and become irrelevant. Trump is in this category - very obviously I believe.
If I believe a candidate truly loves his country…
Trump has sacrificed what is good for his country for what is good for Trump many times in the past. What he truly loves is power, fame, attention, money. This is the one constant in his public life.
I happen to think that Donald Trump would also make a great President.
I disagree for the reasons above.
Trump is a candidate who can draw voters from many different points on the political spectrum, and that, in and of itself, has the makings of an electoral landslide.
He's already peaked. Just as he did last election season. I do definitely consider electability when supporting a candidate; but, Trump fails here also.
Thanks very much for your time in thoughtful reply.
Eminent domain might very well be one of several issues with which I vehemently disagree with Donald Trump.
Anyone who supports Kelo cannot be a constitutional-small government - individual rights conservative. Remember Trump tried to do the same thing: use his own power to manipulate government to trample the rights of an individual.
His statement on Mount McKinley /Denali reinforced it for me. It is a dictator mindset. I'm not saying you support dictatorship, please don't misinterpret my point here; but the signs could not be clearer.
Trump, IMHO, has the attitude that he will use his power for good; but he does not have the grounding in conservative principles that the president should not have that power. As regards constitutional limited-government conservatism, Trump is by far the worst candidate we have.
Thanks again for your post.
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.