He was serious about border security and left a legacy to prove it.
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.
I’m saying that 4 year old articles belong in chat. You can take from that what you will.
That said, I’m also enjoying watching the collective butthurt of TDS sufferers. Even if I have zero intention of voting for Trump or indeed any other candidate on the ballot.
Trump (and CRUZ) only ones speaking out against the ‘usual politics’.
Go ahead and support the rest of the ‘political droids’ running.
You’ll get more of the same that you’ve seen the past 30 years.
“And they’re strangely silent about Cruz voting in favor of TPP...hmmm?”
Lots of motes and beams at FR of late. Also lots of sound and fury, amounting to nothing
This is a thread about Trump, if you wish, you can open another thread on Ted Cruz’s support of the TPP.
____________________________________________
So, you don’t want to address why Cruz (a Republican Senator) voted for TPP in past few of months, but want to make an issue of what Donald thought of ED as a private citizen four years ago?
You are a FREAKING HYPOCRIT!
I understand the passion for defending one’s chosen candidate. That is partly why I have chosen to wait as long as possible before choosing. I want to wait until all the little details about everyone come out. Until they have their chance to respond. And until I can ponder all of it for a nice long time.
Age has that effect.
I predicted during that election that Fred would be doing Depends commercials after the election.
Was I far off?
I never thought he would make a good president, and I thought his record in congress proved it.
You like mushy-middlers, but FR is about real conservatives.
.
I don’t agree that looking at a candidates long record of having contempt for most things Conservatives hold dear is “TDS”.
In 2004 John Kerry’s words and actions from 30 years earlier were used against him, and righfully so IMO.
If Hillary claimed to be a Conservative and ran for the GOP nomination would Conservatives be right to take all her claims at face value and trust her? That is just wbat Trumpkins are doing.
RE: What did the courts say?
Again eminent domain is a very little issue relative to sell out of American wealth that both parties have committed through low tariffs and off shoring.
________________________________
Let’s first look at those who voted FOR the Kelo decision:
Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Those who voted AGAINST:
O’Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
Thomas wrote the DISSENT against it.
Two articles by conservatives were written against the decision.
SEE HERE:
THE CASE AGAINST THE KELO DECISION PART 1
and here:
THE CASE AGAINST THE KELO DECISION PART 2
I can’t believe that I will find FReepers supporting the likes of Ginsburg and Breyer against Scalia and Thomas.
I strongly support Cruz, because his actions have consistently matched his words and he has an outstanding record as a Conservative.
Trump is just the opposite.
Just as an amusing aside, there is a piece of property right on a major intersection in Oakland California where all the major highways meet. You are probably seventy feet up, and if you look down, there is a squalid little home right smack dab in the middle of the freeway interchange. The owner held out since the mid 1960’s. It may be gone now, but was a textbook example of emminent domain vs the homeowner for years.
I can’t believe that I will find FReepers supporting the likes of Ginsburg and Breyer against Scalia and Thomas.
____________________________________
And many of us cannot believe FReepers are carrying the water for the MSM and GOPe. Megyn Kelly, Erick Erickson, and the Liberal Talking Heads appreciate your support.
You folks have more venom for Trump than any of the Dem candidates! Truly pathetic!
.
>> “And Ted Cruz voted for TPP.” <<
.
After he had been promised by McConnell that no deal had been made. He was lied to.
Obviously you support the GOPe snake bag.
.
RE: So, you don’t want to address why Cruz (a Republican Senator) voted for TPP in past few of months, but want to make an issue of what Donald thought of ED as a private citizen four years ago?
You are a FREAKING HYPOCRIT!
_____________________
Hey, I said I am willing to discuss Cruz’s support of the TPP in another thread, what’s so hypocritical about that?
I’d be a hypocrite if I avoided discussing it altogether.
In the meantime, I’d like you to explain to me why Trump’s support for Kelo is OK by you...
And BTW, why is his support of it as a private citizen not relevant? I believe it is TOTALLY relevant. It goes to what you REALLY think about the role of government.
And 4 years ago is not that long ago. It is more recent than someone trying to dig up Romney’s cutting someone’s hair when he was in high school.
I strongly support Cruz, because his actions have consistently matched his words and he has an outstanding record as a Conservative.
Trump is just the opposite.
__________________________________________
Yet you dutifully ignore Trump voting for TPP, providing Obama unbridled power. Sure thing pal.
You have one standard for Trump, and another for Cruz.
Just pointing out your blatant hypocrisy.
,
>> “And they’re strangely silent about Cruz voting in favor of TPP...hmmm?” <<
.
And you’re an obvious troll!
.
And all the students at O.J. Simpson High agree with you.
And BTW, why is his support of it as a private citizen not relevant?
_______________________________________________
Nice diversion!
You simply will not address your blatant hypocrisy and double standard.
My comments about Cruz are perfectly relevant to this discussion and you know it.
Only DU'ers seem more upset about TPP than this guy.
Are you offended by my waiting to choose? What is it to you if I want to wait?
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.