To: Yosemitest
If the taking of the property is for private use, it’s not eminent domain under the definition of the term.
104 posted on
01/10/2016 4:36:44 AM PST by
Theodore R.
(Liberals keep winning; so the American people must now be all-liberal all the time.)
To: Theodore R.
"If the taking of the property is for private use, itâs not eminent domain under the definition of the term."
I know.
Tell me about it.
But that's Donald Trump, for ya'.
Donald Trump and Eminent Domain, August 22nd, 2015
... More, Trump has publicly defended the confiscation of private property for eminent domain, even when the use for which the property is confiscated is purely private in nature:
Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain.
Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said:"Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city.
Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good."
Challenged by Stossel, he saidthat eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads.
But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.
Once again, this is Donald Trump's vision of private property rights when he was just another private citizen.
Imagine how much more damage he could do as the leader of the Federal executive branch.
284 posted on
01/10/2016 4:31:57 PM PST by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson