No kidding.
Donald has no idea what real life is like for most of us.
He loves the Kelo decision. There is nothing conservative about that.
I have a lot of misgivings about the Donald—but will vote for him if he is the nominee.
...and Scottish and Canadian gubbermint health care....and on some issues Bernie Sanders....
You are right in that he has been able to work for 7 days a week since he was a child and many of us have not been so lucky. I personally believe in obeying the Sabbath, but that's just me.
But some of us have not wanted to live such a disciplined life.
I have been rich and I have been poor. And I can tell you there is no poverty greater than having no purpose or prospect of purpose.
Trump wants to bring back purpose to America and that makes us all rich indeed.
There is no greater luxury than falling into bed after a hard day's work knowing that you have provided for your family...and feeling confident that your future is filled with more of the same.
The remainder of this post is from a related thread. As a consequence of citizens not being taught about the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, they don’t understand that the eminent domain protections of the 5th Amendment doesn’t work the same for the states as it does for the federal government. Insights, corrections to the argument below are welcome.
———————————
Note that the Founding States had originally decided that the personal privileges and immunities that the states had amended the Constitution to expressly protect, most of these protections listed in the Bill of Rights, did not apply to the states. In fact, the justices who had clarified the state eminent domain case of Barron v. Baltimore had clarified that, unless the states were specified, general prohibitions on government power in the Constitution applied only to the federal government, not to the states. “
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States.”
…
We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. ” —Barron v. Baltimore, 1833.
So before the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, the states arguably didn’t need an excuse to seize land.
It wasn’t until the states ratified the 14A (that amendment ratified under very questionable conditions imo) that the states required themselves to respect the Constitutiion’s personal privileges and immunities as well.
BUT THERE’S A CATCH !!!
The congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendment took away no state’s rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
In other words, rights expressed in the Constitution as a prohibition of power on the feds, such as 1st Amendment prohibitions on certain powers of Congress to make laws, did not get applied to the states.
So let’s get back to prohibitions on government power versus constitutionally express rights in the context of the 5th Amendment’s imminent domain protections since that is a two-pronged right expressed in terms of a prohibition on government power as well as an express personal right.
"Under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, the government can exercise its eminent domain power to take property from private residents if it satisfies two conditions: it’s for public use, and just compensation [emphases added] is provided."
While the 14th Amendment applied the “just compensation” aspect of the eminent domain clause to the states, as evidenced by Bingham’s clarification concerning states’s rights, that amendment did not apply the “public use" aspect of the eminent domain clause to the states imo.
This is why the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kelo v. New London was the constitutionally correct interpretation of the 5th Amendment in conjunction with the 14th Amendment where state power issues are concerned imo.
It remains that since low-information citizens probably understand the Constitution based on the gossip and hearsay that they are fed that, until citizens work with their local and state government representatives to make state eminent domain laws that are more friendly to homeowners, the eminent domain aspect of the 5th Amendment is probably going to continue to be a “loose canon” for many citizens.
“Donald has no idea what real life is like for most of us.”
Have you ever noticed? That describes 99% of all politicians.
He talked about it as if it were a math equation - one lone “holdout” dispatched here equals x many created jobs there.