[JohnBovenmyer]

Folks need to do some sentence diagramming and analyze what the ad actually said. It did not say Trump "bulldozed," it said Trump "colluded." He did! He took her to court, with the collusion of the government to try to get his bulldozing. But there Trump... lost. The ad may imply Trump got his bulldozing, but it doesn't actually say it. Trump,and his supporters, may not like it, but ad is true. It was probably written by a clever lawyer to make folks think more than they were actually saying. But then Trump thought he had the clever lawyers when he colluded to try to steal the widow's house. It doesn't matter that he offered to pay her more than HE thought the house was worth or than any third party thought the house was worth. He wasn't offering to pay her what SHE thought it was worth! It wouldn't have been a voluntary transaction, it would have been theft via raw government force. Fortunately Trump's side's lawyers weren't as clever as they thought and she proved to be the tougher dealer in this case. It doesn't matter that her estate sold the house for much less, the issue was HER deal, not her heirs' deal. She got the deal she wanted, no deal! She was able to stay in HER house as long as SHE wanted. That's the way America is supposed to work. If a richer dude, such as Bloomberg, wanted to buy Trump Tower to put up a cab stand and Trump didn't want to sell, all of Bloomberg's government connections shouldn't let him take it.

The Supreme court was horribly wrong deciding, Kelo, and not for the first time. Once it took the most precious personal property of a man homesteading in what would become MY town (Bettendorf, IA), his freedom. Slavery had never been legal here nor in Illinois where he'd been taken earlier. He should have become free as soon as he left slavery's jurisdiction. But government, via a bad Supreme Court, took his personal property, his freedom. It was the same principle: she owned her house; he owned himself. Dred Scott v. Sandford took our worst war to overturn. Kelo just needs to have a President, who understands the Constitution and the principles on which it was built, to appoint better Supreme Court justices, to overturn it. If Trump doesn't understand this, how can he be trusted to appoint judges who'll rule when it's our stuff, and our freedom, on the line?

[JayGalt]

http://castlecoalition.org/specter-of-eminent-domain-haunts-atlantic-city-property-owners

http://www.njcrda.com/about-us/
http://www.njcrda.com/all-projects-community-partnerships-and-investments/city-wide-demolition-project/

No Trump didn’t take Vera Coking to court. The NJCRDA did or actually she took them when her house was condemned. They have overseen a very large number of projects, lots of eminent domain involving projects by many developers.

For anyone that wants more philly.com has 5 pages of articles http://articles.philly.com/keyword/vera-coking