Posted on 02/03/2016 6:08:39 AM PST by Kaslin
Donald Trump is running a pretty successful presidential campaign saying that he wants to "Make America Great Again."
But he seems to have very little interest in what exactly it is that makes America great.
This paradox is very much on display when Trump talks about eminent domain, the authority given to government in the constitution to take private property for public use.
Trump says, "Eminent domain is wonderful."
The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution tells us: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The key question is, what is "public use"?
George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin sums it up as follows: "Until the early 20th century, most courts interpreted those words to cover things such as roads or power lines -- projects owned either directly by the government or by private owners who have a legal obligation to serve the entire public, such as utility companies."
"By the 1950s, however," Somin continues, "The original meaning of 'public use' had been largely abandoned. Legal elites came to believe that government planners should have nearly limitless authority to take property to promote growth and combat blight afflicting the urban poor."
Donald Trump includes himself among these "legal elites" who think government should be free to confiscate private property and turn it over to some private developer who proposes a project, claiming it will create jobs.
This is what happened in the Kelo v. City of New London decision in 2005, when the Supreme Court sided with the city of New London, Connecticut, which seized property to make way for a commercial development anchored by a new research facility for Pfizer Corporation.
One of the property owners, Susette Kelo, sued the city, claiming this seizing of private property for a private development was not "public use" as intended in the constitution.
The court sided with the city, 5-4. The two solid conservatives on the Court at the time, Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas, sided with Kelo, who was represented by the libertarian public interest law firm Institute for Justice.
Donald Trump told Fox News' Neil Cavuto, regarding the Kelo decision, "I happen to agree with it 100 percent."
It sounds so nice to say a project can bring jobs and development. But can we really allow, in our country, the forcing of private owners off their property because a government entity, working with a private developer, claims there is potential in some new development there?
We have proof in the pudding with Kelo, where the owners were removed and then the project fell through. The place is now an abandoned lot.
Washington is filled with special interests looking for favors, claiming their business project is in the "national interest." Business people such as Donald Trump, who think they know what is best for everyone, can be free to buy out whomever they want. But how can we put the force of government behind them and kick people out of their homes? This is what makes America great?
Back in 1993, Donald Trump tried to buy Vera Coking's Atlantic City home to use the property for his casino development. She refused to sell. So New Jersey confiscated her property. Coking was represented by the Institute for Justice, and defeated Donald Trump in court. Coking kept her home.
Cato Institute economist Mark Calabria estimates that since the Kelo decision in 2005 more than 1 million households "have been displaced by government action." Of these households, Calabria estimates 29 percent were black and 32 percent households in poverty.
What makes America great is respect for law and respect for all private citizens and their property.
We need leaders who understand and care about this. This is what will make America great. Not unprincipled dealmakers looking for wealth and power.
Tag line.
And we all disregard Indian property. This country was built on eminent domain.
It’s interesting that this aspect of Trump’s biography doesn’t offend more FReepers.
*YAWN*
Same tired old BS. Try again.
Without eminent domain there is no keystone pipeline.
Not unprincipled deal makers looking for wealth and power. .................................. Like those in Congress the cabinet, the Czars, former president’ wife?
I wouldn’t mind getting one of those nice eminent domain payouts.
Trump has the MOST IMPORTANT regard for private property.
He wants our property protected from illegal invasion by illegal immigrants and terrorists.
We have middle eastern fighting age men flooding into our country, and Trump wants to protect our property and our sovereignty and our lives from all of that.
well said.
It’s interesting that some version of this is posted several times a day for weeks now
[I wouldn’t mind getting one of those nice eminent domain payouts.]
You’re not kidding! If someone came along and offered me a million dollars for my house, I would take it and run and not look back!
REFERENCE---A 2007 study by the Institute for Land Justice, a think-tank opposed to eminent domain, listed what it said were disparate effects of eminent domain.
Taken together, more residents in areas targeted by eminent domain are ethnic or racial minorities, who have completed significantly less education, and live on significantly less income; more of them live at or below the federal poverty line, as quoted in the International Business Times.
Apparently no since this author spent her whole column whining about the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.
I see you received your education from indoctrinators and not educators.
Sad, but, it’s never too late.
Try Patriot’s History of the US by FR’s own LS for a start.
[Trump has the MOST IMPORTANT regard for private property.
He wants our property protected from illegal invasion by illegal immigrants and terrorists.]
You make an important point in that many “conservative” voters are so stubborn and steadfast, in an all or nothing fashion in terms of whaat a candidate does or believes, that they will dismiss a candidate over something menial as this, while missing the overall picture of the problems we face.
“””It’s interesting that this aspect of Trump’s biography doesn’t offend more FReepers.”””
I have been a member here for many years. I am very saddened that so many “conservatives” are rooting for a New York liberal with endless democrat ties like trump.
There is no chance to save the USA with that happening. If trump can fool so many on this site then we have all lost.
Except for, you know, honestly purchasing the land from the current owners of private property for a fair market value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmM4ZBoppNQ
A logical analysis of this “issue” proves that it is just a distraction.
Regardless of his views, the POTUS has virtually nothing to do with eminent domain. That is mostly a state matter, and many states immediately passed laws in the wake of the Kelo decision to prevent such seizures. As for federal seizures, they have to be paid for - which requires Congressional action to appropriate the money. Thus, I am not in the least worried about what a hypothetical President Trump believes about eminent domain.
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.