Rand Paul V. Donald Trump: Eminent Domain

National Review ^ | 9/14/2015 | John Fund

[SMCC1]

"Paul later told me he thinks he has found an approach that will separate Trump from the rest of the GOP field: eminent domain. “A hallmark of Republicans is that they respect private property. But Trump runs roughshod over it,” he said. “He is a serious abuser of taking property for his private benefit.”

[zeugma]

Sure. Sign up with a new account and stop using the old one. Of course, a big healthy donation to FR might help maintain your posting history.

[MinuteGal]

If anyone mentions Trump's hair-do ever again, just trot out that photo above of Rand Paul's tossed salad.

Leni

[Forgotten Amendments]

How is he a libertarian?

It's depressing how ignorant people are about the basic concept of libertarianism. The Left is even worse than the low-info Right. There is no debate. Just name calling.

[Chgogal]

As a private property holder I am with you. As a person who had to help get a pipeline built I see Trump's point.

Did you see the rally? If you didn't I'm not going to waste my time or yours.

[GunRunner]

I don’t see how you could be of two minds. Either the government can actively redistribute private property, or it can’t. Kelo was either wrong, or it was right. There really is no in between.

[Chgogal]

Have you been in a business that builds things?

[Chgogal]

Imagine having to build a 3,000 mile pipeline and having to negotiate with each and every landowner who charges a huge amount of money to pass a pipeline through their land? The negotiations take forever and it costs a bunch. And don't tell me it only costs the big company the big bucks, because it does not. Those costs (including the cost of lawyers who do the negotiating) go into the rates that are paid by the you and me.

But as a private land owner I'm with you.

[GunRunner]

No, but I am a property owner. Perhaps if your business requires government coercion to force people to sell you their property, you should pick a new line of business.

Was Kelo decided correctly, and do you believe that the government has the constitutional ability to forcibly take property from one citizen and give it to a private company? If so, does the Takings Clause have any limits at all?

[GunRunner]

So, you’re fine taking other peoples’ property for your pipeline, but you’re against YOUR property being taken for a similar purpose.

[Plummz]

Paul didn’t have to tour very far. It was in the public Congressional cafeteria. Sharpton requested the meeting. Seems to me a President should be willing to talk with any American.

But hey, I understand, it’s okay when your guy does it. You’re not a ridiculous hypocrite or anything.

[Chgogal]

So you are fine with preventing the building of pipelines?

[GunRunner]

I’m not fine with violating people’s constitutional rights to build anything. So the question becomes, is the pipeline you were building a “public use” under the Takings Clause?

[D-fendr]

I think for your debate to improve in quality, it should be noted there are different reasons here for claiming emminent domain for personal property:

1) limousine parking lot for a privately-owned hotel

2) 3,000 mile pipeline

[Chgogal]

You are right. The point I was trying to make there is a natural friction between government, business/industrial and residential property rights. The government should never have the power to take land rights away from its citizens. The friction between industrial, commercial and residential citizens is a more complex debate.

[Servant of the Cross]

1) Trump is not 'my guy'. It's obvious that Rand is yours. It must be really hard to support such a loser. My condolences.

2) A picture by itself is nothing. However, when combined with disgusting political pandering by Rand (which I guess you missed earlier, so I'll repost)
Rand Paul Wants Bigger GOP: ‘You Go to a Republican Event and It’s All White People’
Rand Paul's NYPD Shooting Blowback
Rand Paul Blames Politicians for Ferguson Tragedy

3) The significant CONTRASTS between the purpose of the two pictures eliminate any hint of hypocrisy that you so desperately wish to suggest to make your guy look better.

[GunRunner]

I think for your debate to improve in quality, it should be noted there are different reasons here for claiming emminent domain for personal property:

1) limousine parking lot for a privately-owned hotel

2) 3,000 mile pipeline

You would think that would be a good argument, and I would have gladly made that point.

However on this very thread we've seen a Trump supporter impugn Ms. Coking and call her a "blackmailer", so some Trump supporters seem to be adopting the Clinton strategy of attacking anyone who questions the past motives, policies, and actions of their chosen candidate. They might as well have said "Drag a dollar bill through Atlantic City and you're bound to find an old widow blackmailing Trump", even though she didn't want to sell and was in no conceivable position to "blackmail" anyone.

The poster also called me an 'idiot' for saying that Trump should be ashamed of his actions, so taking all of that into account, going directly back to the 5th Amendment seems to be the only way to prove the point.

[Terry L Smith]

dear, uh, I forgot,

re:
“The whole point is that it was for the use of a private business. It’s crony corporate WELFARE. It is fascism.”

IF YOU HAD READ ... (ahem) ... there was ‘no crony capiltalism’, when the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE pulled that crap on me!

So, since the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE gets THEIR money through the budgetary processes of Congress, THAT is why I framed my question, as I did.

A sitting U.S. Senator has a voting record, do they not?
As part of the examination of any U.S. Senator running for President, would it not be wise to examine that voting record?

In my eyes, Rand Paul is all hat and no cattle.

[Terry L Smith]

dear Plummz,

re:
“Sen. Paul has only been in Congress since 2011.”

Ok, granted. Now, how many military budgets has he put his name to, that would include ‘eminent domain’ proceedings against other Americans, ‘for the convenience of the government’.

Eminent domain is not relegated to only businesses wanting private property that folks don’t want to sell.

[GunRunner]

Eminent domain is not relegated to only businesses wanting private property that folks don’t want to sell.

It shouldn't involve businesses wanting private property that folks don't want to sell AT ALL! That is not a public use per the Constitution, unless you support the Kelo decision and think it was decided correctly.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The poster also called me an 'idiot' for saying that Trump should be ashamed of his actions, so taking all of that into account, going directly back to the 5th Amendment seems to be the only way to prove the point.

Well, you are. This one example-- and you only got one-- went to court by the government of NJ and the judge rejected it anyway. That's the law and it obviously went towards the resident in that case. So why should Trump be ashamed for using the law? It might be cute to hold a position where eminent domain is always wrong. But when you have one person holding up development of a crappy neighborhood because they want 2 million instead of one million for property they paid 60 or 75 thousand for not long prior, that's certainly a justified case to take to court. I am quite correct in my characterization of her as a blackmailer. They ended up selling the land later for less than what Trump offered in the end.