Posted on 08/09/2015 7:15:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Good point to discuss. Rats are more likely to be emotional thinkers than Reoublicans historically. I’m not sure how this breaks down by age. For a conservative to win big in the general election they must be good at attracting both kinds of voters. Reagan did this. The media play a large role in keeping nonRats from achieving an emotional resonance with the emotional thinkers.
Simple. He was a real estate developer, not a philosopher or politician, at the time. Of all businesses that are crony capitalist, urban real estate development has to be near the top.
Even with all of his money Jeb is irrelevant. Fiorina will get the moderate vote.
I’m not so sure about that. I think the GOP establishment has control of all the lower level party apparatus in many states and they’ll be working their special sauce to take out whoever is a threat to Jeb. IIRC John McCain and the GOP pulled some sort of collusion with another opponent in the Virginia or West Virginia to derail his nearest competitor.
“Donald Trump is going to make a great President.”
Of what?
To: SpaceBar
” We need to get our foot in the door. and Trump’s the guy to do it. Cruz will make a brilliant VP, while paving his way to the presidency.”
Basically what I have been saying for over a month now . Trump 4 or 8 years would usher in Cruz for 8 more . Making America great again .
RE: The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows the government to take private property for “public use,” so long as “just compensation” is paid.
NOT IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT.
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.
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.
SEE HERE:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/06/revisiting-kelo
In looking at the “modern trilogy” of public use cases, the memorandum surveys the step-by-step gutting of the property rights protections found in the text of the Public Use Clause. In this analysis of the case, the memorandum argues that the court erred in two fundamental ways: contorting the text of the Public Use Clause and missing Supreme Court precedent.
SEE HERE:
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism?activism-type=contorting-text
In both Berman v. Parker (1954) and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), the Court addressed cases involving nonfrivolous claims of injuries to the public: urban blight and oligopolistic land use. Historically, the government has had the right to protect the public by condemning property that injures the public.
In Berman, however, the court mistakenly concluded that “[t]he ‘public use’ requirement is … coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police power.” As a consequence of conflating the state’s eminent domain power (which is limited by the Public Use Clause) with its general regulatory power (which is a component of the government’s police power), Kelo misread decades of precedent that had more specifically addressed government use of police power under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, not the use of eminent domain.
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.
in her Kelo dissent Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that no one but a “stupid staff[er]” could fail to imagine some public benefit from any government taking. With Kelo, what remained of the meaning behind the Public Use Clause went up in flames—and with it, the protection of citizens’ property rights.
Many scholars, even before the Kelo decision, saw the decisions in Berman and Midkiff as the death of the Public Use Clause. But three facts about Kelo—(1) it was a controversial subject; (2) the court was divided 5-4; and (3) O’Connor, who had written the court’s Midkiff opinion, dissented—ignited a national debate on the meaning of the Public Use Clause.
It is no surprise that conservative Justices Scalia and Thomas, together with Rehnquist decided AGAINST The City of London and the LIBERAL wing of the court decided FOR The City of London.
Casino's and motel/hotels and malls etc should not fall under Eminent Domain acts. How Trump has obtained his wealth does bother me. Like it or not it's mainly by Casino operations. Casino's serve no other function than to separate persons from their money. Their product is a false hope of one paying their money to a casino in the form of bets with the casino having a huge advantage and winning a fortune. It's like the grab machine used to get kids to pay several dollars in arcades to buy some 50 cent toy.
I see no difference in how Trump got his fortune than Joe Kennedy got his and established the Kennedy fortune. It was off of other peoples misery. That part of Trumps personality concerns me. Trump is a salesman. Whether it's selling cities on the idea of a new casino, a land deal, or his own idea it's all the same. The part of him that has to have attention also is a concern. It's not just positive attention it seems but any kind of attention it seems much like the current Resident.
Will Trump abide with the limits as written into The Constitution and protect and uphold it? Or will he do like Obama run roughshod on his own agendas and as long as some Conservative issues are won make some persons happy? Trump knows what to say to whom and when. That aspect is much like Hillary Clinton who can also play conservative in conservative venues and that scares me.
I think Trumps bottom line is Trump. His support of Romney at a time we had better choices also sticks in my mind. He's a salesman. Our government is not a corporate board room it is an elected representation for We The People. Will We The People be served in a Constitutional manner or will we see yet more of We The Corporate Interest? To whom will Trump serve and to whom does he owe his allegiances? Since 1989 we have witnesses POTUS after POTUS and congress after congress serve interest both foreign and domestic ones other than our own and promise us the moon and deliver misery too us. My support is going to Cruz. He's the one I trust the most based on his own record and his own character. Is the media playing us for fools hyping up Trump because they see Cruz the biggest threat? Remember this. The media could stop coverage of Trump today and by next month many would forget about him.
It’s actually a review of his position on an important policy question that has traditionally mattered to conservatives.
Is it OK to expose Hillary’s Liberal record or would that be a “hit piece” as well?
How dare you cause cognitive dissonance among Trumpbots. Your comment should have been preceded by a trigger warning.
But it's a bad example. Highways are public use. It is next to impossible to create an efficient highway or hightway system if they have to build in dog legs to go around holdouts. Kelo was about using eminent domain to transfer property to whoever could potentially generate the most economic activity on that property.
Yep. Cruz is gaining...
Trump is not as strong as he was...we will see what the weeks from here on out hold.
Yes, we are dealing with the same thing...
Of course, you must understand, that those who like Trump and cheer him on are really Conservative...no, really, they are. No really....
Cruz won’t win on his own? Really?
The polling dating post debate says otherwise...
So, rather than trying to justify support for a Liberal, why not hop on with Cruz and ride Conservatism to the WH...
Wait, that would mean you’d have to support the Conservative...never mind.
That doesn’t require him to support such an obviously bad decision.
I consider the Kelo decision to be one of the top 5 worst SCOTUS decision ever.
The fact that Trump supported it and actively used it makes him one of the worst enemies of conservatism.
He must opposed.
He must be actively opposed.
The fact that some Freepers support Trump is unacceptable.
just an observation for ALL of us. There are many ONE ISSUE voters out there whether liberal or conservative.
AND
Liberal and conservative have no clear definition. It means what ever we want it to mean.
It IS a valid issue. The right to own property is at the heart of individual freedom.
Wow!
You’re loaded for Bear.
I think you’ve simply misunderstood the ping; sorry.
.
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.