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.
EXCELLENT!
Thank you for pointing this out.
See #32
Donald says he wants to deal. Let’s take it at face value. We can’t just swoon for a mortal figure no matter how promising — that’s fatal. We need to push back. God Himself hates waste, and what a locality might view as a high bid might turn out to be poorly supported.
It’s embarrassing to see conservatives twisting themselves into pretzels defending the use of eminent domain for a limousine parking lot.
Pipelines are necessary for the national defense, what part of that are you too dumb to understand?
How about illegal mailers and scamming Carson voters... this just recently happened, so let’s pound that. The same eminent domain sludge and Obamacare lies keep coming up to cloud over Cuz sins every time he commits one. Notice the postings when the mailer went out... suddenly the same old retread crap about Trump gets posted.
How many illegals would even qualify through our legal immigration laws?
Very few
Are you saying that only Trump benefits from Trump, Inc. does?
Oh, believe me, Trump's support for the Kelo decision is the number one reason why I support Cruz over Trump.
The Kelo decision is right up there with Roe v Wade and Dred Scott v Sandford as the greatest SCOTUS blunders.
Oh, we need to press every single candidate about basic issues that matter to God as well. Nobody should consider himself or herself a shoo-in without being asked to address these things. We may forgive some things in the end, but we shouldn’t just be excusing with no questions. This is what intelligent exercise of the “We The People” role looks like.
Without eminent domain abuse there is theft of private property in favor of developers with connections to city leaders.
I want to deal the illegals right out of the property that is my country AND let no one in without a thorough vetting.
Abstract freedom never was very robust with respect to real estate.
The worst feature of Kelo was not even going against that idea of freedom, but that it is an open door for waste. If a government pays me to move and it’s fair, but then it wastes what it bought, I am not going to just grin.
Trump might or might not do that. His character will be proved out by how he answers challenges of other public concerns. If he suddenly gets ultra dodgy, then the wall might be a mirage after all. We have to exercise wisdom.
Although I can’t understand why, I know that most, if not all, Trump supporters have no problem with his position on eminent domain. Haven’t seen it defended or explained, per se, other than “who cares” type responses. Isn’t the very concept of private property a fundamental component of our [formerly] constitutional federal republic?
And yes, I recognize that, given tax policies that allow local governments to seize for sale property that was paid for 200 years ago, the concept of private property is already badly eroded.
I know it’s not politically correct to say so, but, as for the Indian issue, it’s a non sequitur. Every inch of land on this earth was, at some point, owned and/or occupied by someone else, some other clan, some other nation or some other tribe. Some was sold and some was taken by force, but it has all changed hands many times throughout recorded history and prehistory. Land now occupied by the Blackfoot was, at some point, occupied by the Crow and vice-versa and land now occupied by the Hopi, Zuni, Pueblo and Navajo was, at some point, occupied by the Anasazi. I say this as a man whose grandfather was raised on a reservation and I am well-versed in the oral history of at least some of the Apache clans and their wars with other clans and tribes.
However, the Kelo decision, which provides for the government’s use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner, only further erodes the definition of private property and invites government corruption. It is no different than government subsidies, which allow the government to pick winners and losers; to decide who will make the best use of taxpayer dollars and, in the case of eminent domain, who will make the best use of private property taken by the government. Whether ethanol subsidies or private property, the government’s record in such matters really isn’t very good and very few beyond corrupt politicians and the wealthy who own those politicians ever profit from it.
No one -- absolutely no one -- questions the need for eminent domain.
But Trump believes it's just fine for the government to take your property and give or sell it to another private citizen because it likes what he'll do with it.
Eminent domain was not meant to seize your property only to give it to someone else; it was intended for public uses.
Do you -- can you understand the difference?
And please don’t drama-queen about humanity issues comparing them to real-estate issues. That really denigrates humanity.
That’ll show the illegals! Then when we deport, let them touch back, DT says that's the right thing to do. That’ll save US jobs for sure! US Chamber of Commerce loves that plan.
While were at it, let's vote for a guy who wants to cut deals with McConnell, the man who just stated that there's no reason for the GOP to oppose any Obama measure this year because it may hurt the party's election chances. Schumer too, Trump has a great, awesome relationship with him and Schumer is the most rational Democrat of them all. Art of the deal, art of deal, art of the deal!
If we could just stop letting people die in streets, a very non-Republican thing to say, because only Trump wants to cure that despite Medicaid already being in place. What a guy. The Canadian health care system is great, we know it because Trump said so. Let's expand it!
DT, champion of conservative principles since June 2015.
Kelo definitely looks like an invitation to waste, based on how it started out.
It is the central aspect of his campaign.
It will be done.
Additionally, there is at this moment no impediment to it being done. It ALREADY was passed into law some time ago and never acted on.
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.