Posted on 02/08/2016 5:12:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
There's no question that one of the most memorable exchanges in last night's GOP debate in New Hampshire came over the question of eminent domain, the constitutionally sanctioned taking of private property for public use. Donald Trump is for robust use of eminent domain, including instances that most people would agree constitute eminent-domain abuse. That is, situations in which the property being seized is delivered either immediately or soon after to a private entity (such as the egregious case in which Trump himself worked with Atlantic City officials to kick a widow out of her house so he could expand a parking lot he owned).
Not all eminent domain is abuse, though, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled dumbly in Kelo v. New London, the 2005 case that sparked new state-level protections for property owners, that a city could essentially take any property and give it to private developers as long as the planned development would somehow benefit the public via higher tax revenue. (Reason covered Kelo long before the case made it to the Supremes; read our interview right after the discussion with one of the lawyers representing Suzette Kelo, Scott Bullock of the Institute of Justice.)
As Robby Soave has already noted, during last night's debate, Trump clearly lost the audience when he unapologetically defended eminent domain. But he also made a point that received little to no notice but is just as telling as the real-estate mogul's willingness to use whatever levers he can to get what he wants: The Keystone XL pipeline isn't getting built without yuge amounts of eminent domain. And what's more: Jeb Bush, who pushed the Donald out for his willingness to try (unsuccessfully) kick widows out of their homes, agrees.
Check out the exchange, part way in:
TRUMP: ...Eminent domain, the Keystone pipeline--do you consider that a private job? Do you--do you consider that...
BUSH: I consider it a public use.
TRUMP: No--no, let me ask you, Jeb. Do you consider the Keystone pipeline private?
BUSH: It's a public use. It's a public use.
TRUMP: Is it public or private?
BUSH: It's a public use.
TRUMP: Real--a public use?
BUSH: Yeah.
TRUMP: No, it's a private job.
BUSH: It's a public use.
TRUMP: It's a private job.
BUSH: Established by the courts--federal, state courts.
TRUMP: You wouldn't have the Keystone pipeline that you want so badly without eminent domain.... You wouldn't have massive--excuse me...you wouldn't have massive factories without eminent domain.
Note that Barack Obama's years-long dithering on giving the OK or not to let the Keystone XL pipeline to built was seen by virtually all Republicans as yet one more sign that the crypto-Muslim was hell-bent on destroying America. Because the extension of the Keystone pipeline crosses the U.S. border with Canada, the president ha sthe authority to halt construction if he determined the construction wasn't in the "the national interest." Obama determined that it didn't. And when Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders also eventually came out against the pipeline, it was just one more sign that Democrats, liberals, green-meanies, and whatnot were not just ideologically blinded by the global-warming lobby but were positively rooting for America to become a third-world country. It's an article of faith among conservatives and many libertarians that the pipeline should have been approved.
It's also safe to say that all the candidates on the stage last night support building the Keystone XL pipeline. And it goes without saying that many if not all of them are totally against eminent-domain abuse, which got its sanction from the 1949 Housing Act, championed and signed by Harry Truman as a means of ushering in a vast era of "urban renewal" (the writer James Baldwin quipped bitterly that "urban renewal means 'negro removal.'")
The real question, and one that Trump raises, is whether using eminent domain to build a privately operated pipeline such as Keystone XL constitutes a legitimate use of the process or not. In Texas, pipeline operators avail themselves of eminent domain if they agree to be "common carriers,...a pipeline that will be available at market rates for other companies to use, and therefore in the public interest." The Keystone case is complicated enough that the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public-interest firm behind the Kelo case (and dozens of successful state laws that tightened use of eminent domain at the state level) takes no position on whether the proposed project is a legitimate use of eminent domain:
But Steven Anderson, the Institute for Justice's managing vice president, told ThinkProgress that the group's focus is on making sure eminent domain is reserved for “traditional public uses," and that it does not currently take a position on pipelines in general or Keystone XL in particular. Instead, he said, the group focuses on “obvious private to private transfers."
Is Donald Trump an unabashed supporter of the worst and most-obvious use of eminent domain abuse? Absolutely, and it's one more indicator that he's not a limited-government character.
However, if Jeb Bush and all the other pro-Keystone XL candidates onstage last night agree the pipeline should be built, then they've got a tough question to answer. One so tough that the group that almost singlehandedly brought eminent-domain abuse to light a decade ago hasn't taken a position on the project. Should all the people booing Trump last night be forcing their favored Republican to explain whether he thinks the project should only go forward without using eminent domain? Or at least, that he should clarify (as Bush did) that he believes the pipeline serves a public interest (which is different than "the national interest")?
In 2013, Reason TV offered up "3 Reasons To Build The Keystone XL Pipeline," none of which addressed the question of eminent domain:
/
I believe we have aimed it twice at blighted areas. In one case, they took down several houses for a school. However, there was no excuse...they could have used a huge old rarely used playground or rehabbed the existing school which wasn't that old. Politicians doing what they want.
TransCanada owns Keystone. Typically in our area, utilities take easements.
The punks at Reason are still pissed that Ron Paul isn't running for office again. That said, the whole widow story is hardly this simple. She wanted to sell the house; she just didn't want the more than one million that was offered to her. She wanted 5 million, when businesses on the street had sold out for the same million or so offered to her. Furthermore, it wasn't Trump that brought the eminent domain suit against her; it was the city, because they understand how stupid it looks to have a deteriorating shack surrounded on all 3 sides with steel girders. The mayor described her home as deteriorating.
In the end, her son put her into a nursing home and made off with only 500,000 for the house. So much for her wanting to die in her home.
Not all eminent domain is abuse, though, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled dumbly in Kelo v. New London
Speaking of Kelo, the Supreme Court ruled exactly like they did because there was more than a hundred years of court cases and government action that backed it up.
The Keystone case is complicated enough that the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public-interest firm behind the Kelo case (and dozens of successful state laws that tightened use of eminent domain at the state level) takes no position on whether the proposed project is a legitimate use of eminent domain:
That's because they're sissies. Keystone is a private pipeline. The US has no ownership or profits in any way from it. It provides "public benefit" according to the same reasoning used for justifying Kelo. They won't take a position because then they will realize that the reason why private railroads, pipelines, etc., have been built throughout the history of the US is because courts and the government have been interpreting "public use" to include "public benefit."
The issue, in NH, has nothing to do with Keystone. There is a plan to take property in NH to bring a huge power line down through the heart of the state in order to get cheaper Canadian hydropower.
While it’s not an issue for a vast majority of people, it IS in NH.
Here is a link to this issue for NH voters:
http://www.northernpass.us/index.htm?gclid=CMvg0KCi6MoCFYaRHwodNfYNxA
I thought conservatives believed in liberty and private property rights?
I guess not. Now we support taking a widows HOME away by force of law for a casino parking lot.
We are screwed.
I admit I’m a stickler on eminent domain. Roads, bridges, infrastructure only. And railroads and pipelines might be private enterprise, but I tend to look upon them as having an important national security/welfare angle, so they get encompassed too, albeit with a wary eye.
But eminent domain for development of things like shopping malls, stadiums, casinos, etc.? Nope. I don’t care how much ‘economic’ benifit to the community it might potentially create. I’m agin’ it. So, although I’m probably more in line with Trump than any other candidate on almost every issue, this is one glaring exception.
Speaking of liberty and private property rights, Ted Cruz sent his daddy as part of his campaign to preach a Dominionist sermon in front of a Dominionist congregation that featured brilliant theology that explained that the wealth of the wicked would be redistributed into the hands of the righteous by the anointed Kings of God. I don't know about you but that's a lot worse than supporting eminent domain, which no politician can do anything about, nor should, since the individual states have already taken action to pass their own legislation and don't want the Feds sticking their noses in.
Nicely done Greeter, nicely done.
Please post any statement by Ted Cruz EVER where he is advocating redistributing income or wealth??
Cue the crickets............
Nice try though.
Trump has been on the purchasing side of that equation many times over the course of his empire building, as he brags. Of course he supports the big government position as he tries to shift over to the seller's side of the equation.
His position is the exact opposite of conservatism. It's sleazy and fundamentally wrong. I'm not surprised to find you defending it.
Nope, they ruled as they did because of precedent, like Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff and Berman v. Parker. The opposition wasn't even sensible. One of the opposing judges even wrote that the reason why eminent domain couldn't be used in the Kelo case is because it's only lawful to "directly" benefit the public... like by seizing property to redistribute to less rich people.
His daddy sat there doing it as part of his campaign, but it's covered over in Messianic language about anointed Kings doing God's work to dispossess the wicked.
Might explain why Cruz is willing to be unethical on the campaign trail. Anointed Kings are born to conquer the "mountains" of society.
Lol! That was the funniest attempt to switch topics ever. “Forget about ‘eminent domain’, somebody not running for anything said something about dominionist Kings of God somewhere!” WTF was that?!
Zero, just as I thought.
Further proof facts and issues don’t matter to the Trump cult.
That obviously doesn't apply to Keystone because the availability of oil has a much larger public benefit independent of the profits/revenue it makes for the owner.
Trump is just wildly wrong on this.
Cruz's dad working as part of the Cruz campaign, sent there precisely because the campaign got Larry Huch on the phone and asked for his endorsement and got it.
Only if you think campaign surrogates don't speak for the candidate.
Trump did work with the officials in NJ to throw out of her house of over 30 years. His workers damaged her house. He is an elitist who has no problems running over the little guy for his personal benefit.
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.