Posted on 01/23/2016 10:01:45 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Yes, but the 5 tyrants (4 strongly dissented) only said it wasn’t unconstitutional as I understand it.
Congress can make a new law placing further restrictions on eminent domain defining the “public good”. The President can sign it. I don’t think Trump would. He likes Kelo.
Which is my point. So it could matter and isn’t completely beyond possibility.
Care to provide any facts that all these pipelines or even a significant number of them used eminent domain to get them done?
Public utilities do use eminent domain to get access if they can’t make a deal with the property owner. A public utility could be water, sewer, energy, etc. Even then you don’t normally lose your property. You just can’t keep them from putting a pipe in the ground.
Typical pipelines running across peoples farms, ranches, etc are easements where the pipeline company pays the property owner for the right to access it to maintain it. The farmers farm right over it. Cattle don’t care. It can be very profitable to have a new pipeline placed on your property. You don’t lose your property. You only lose the ability to build a structure on the pipeline easement only. And if it is fenced in, you have to provide access.
Truth does matter right?
The topic (eminent domain) is worthy of discussion; but, apparently, not here where candidate pimping and shaming is the full mental capacity of the majority on the first page. I used to love Free Republic for the depth and intelligence of its contributors. I miss the old days.
I’m against eminent domain almost 100%, especially for highways that bog down our beautiful landscape in the name of growing cities. Why are bigger cities something people should give up their homes and land for? Just because the Keystone pipeline is good, doesn’t mean eminent domain is good or necessary - build your baby the old fashioned way, buy the land outright or go around.
But my positions on eminent domain and ethanol subsidies doesn’t make me pro-Cruz and anti-Trump; my positions make me want to discuss the issues with other conservatives to understand their point of view, why do they support those issues and how are they consistent with conservatism. Essentially, I want to know what I might be missing on the issues. I’d do like to do the same with the candidates, because I haven’t decided who I am voting for yet - but I’m not sure this is place for that anymore.
I didn’t find it particularly deficient. I understood you.
Your points about the gas pipeline were informative and reasoned.
Your point about the Cruz/Bush relationship to 187 was off. I did not state or infer they acted to block it. They were five years after it’s demise in 1999.
The thing I objected to was the crafting of a statement saying 187 was wrongheaded and something they disagreed with.
That belief would be 180 degrees off point as it related to a conservative view, was a betrayal of the people who bucked the system to pass it, and contrary to a states right to enact laws to protect it’s populace from a lack of federal action to protect the states themselves from invasion.
That would be a direct conflict with Article Four Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the president’s duty to protect states from invasion.
We really need to get rid of our Constitution. It, and this silly notion of individual rights are what stands in the way of progress.
“You lost already, its Over.”
What’s “over?” Not a single vote has been counted or tallied yet. Here in America, we conduct elections to settle these matters. How is it done in your country?
Got it. The time line slipped by me...
Looking, a pipeline (or wire) that is deemed as being part of a public utility can use eminent domain to get the right of way (before Kelo) as a last resort.
“And who won? The corporatists that use the state to steal property?”
Well, eminent domaine has to be sparingly and wisely for sure. I’m not for its broad use for private endeavors such as building hotels , parking lots, etc. conversely, I’m not for allowing some crochity old geezer the ability to hold up a project that the majority of locals are for and would benefit the general community or the country at large, example, Keystone Pipeline.
Just imagine what the dems will do with this.
I don’t know the circumstance, but you can always go to Jim with undo requests.
Don’t get personal with attacks and it should be fine.
Tag line.
Why would you believe anything he says?
You need to say what that I said was in error.
So who should I believe - someone that tried to get an amendment added to a massive Amnesty bill that HE SAID would have enabled it to sail through Congress, but later claims it was some type of poison bill?
Or any of the others that are outright for Open Borders and mass legalization?
Tom Tancredo may be the only one around that hasn’t waffled on immigration, but he’s not running.
I told you that you could not ignore it. =)
When I look at the ledger it’s clear to see who has consistently been liberal and flexible, who has supported liberals and liberal causes - and Trump is someone I would never trust.
Pointing out a candidate’s flaws and inconsistencies in their positions is not “trashing”. However, calling other candidates or journalists “stupid” or “terrible” and making baseless personal attacks, such as insulting their looks is trash talk. It is crass, unprofessional, and indicates mental weakness.
Only one candidate in the race engages in this behavior. Can you guess who that is?
I’m single issue this election and I have to pick the one that seems the most credible on immigration this time around...so Trump for me, but I don’t blame others for supporting Cruz.
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.