Video Ted Cruz is For Eminent Domain Use

Conservative treehouse ^ | 2/8/16 | sundance

[bigtoona]

Senate Candidate Ted Cruz was for it, before he was against it…

[vette6387]

“The Cruz Family House of Lies is collapsing.
PS-—IF elected he has ZERO intention of building a wall or sealing the border. He is totally owned by the no-borders, globalist crony corps and NGOs. “

That’s the real issue! All this BS about Eminent Domain is a smokescreen. Simply stated, there are not thousands of “little old ladies” being thrown into the street for the benefit of private interests. I will tell you though, what is a disgrace, and that’s “public redevelopment agencies” that use eminent domain to allow cities and towns to take property without appropriate compensation for their owners, and then take the property off the tax rolls (to “help the redevelopers”) for say ten years, so that tax burden falls on the rest of the community. No private entity ever got property through eminent domain that it didn’t do so with the complicity and co-operation of government.

[Springfield Reformer]

The Kelo Court decided it could no longer draw the line between “public use” of the traditional kind versus “public benefit” of the thinnest possible excuse kind. That’s why over 40 states (IIRC) immediately set up their own laws to constrain Kelo-like abuses. Scalia said Kelo is so bad it’s right up there with Dred Scot. He’s right. It reduces our liberty by expanding the class of possible public uses to be almost limitless, so that you can no longer protect your home from a private third party who wants it, if they can offer some speculative theory of collectivist benefit. “For the greater good, comrade, we must tear down your home and put up a McDonalds.” I’m not kidding. That very thing happened to my wife’s birth home. It’s a serious devaluation of your right to your homestead, a deep foundation stone in the common law, a critical support to individual liberty. Kelo was an essential step in boiling the capitalist frog.

And I’ll tell you something else. Our FR family, for all it’s squabbling, needs to pay some real attention to this. If Cruz doesn’t win, that’s not the most important thing to me, it’s not the end of the world. But if we are supposed to be serious conservatives at this site, we cannot be dis-unified on matters that are critical to our freedom. The Heritage foundation has written extensively on this issue. It is one thing I really wish we were not fighting about or using as a weapon one candidate against another. We should be as unified on this as we supposedly are on abortion. It’s that important to defeating the left in the long term. Scalia is right. Kelo is the Dred Scot of private property rights, and we need to have a united voice in the matter.

For those who wish to educate themselves, I highly recommend the following article:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/06/revisiting-kelo

Peace,

SR

[jospehm20]

But you think Cruz can win with even less support?

[JoSixChip]

Pipelines get built all the time without eminent domain.

Ya, and pipelines get built all the time using eminent domain. And little bunnies get run over on the highway all the time. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

[SampleMan]

As with most of the Frumpsters, you are quite the internet commando.

I see you talking smack, as if you could out punch a Brownie. What a flaming joke.

I’m done with all the fake conservatives touting their crap on FR. I’ll call you out every day, so go cry somewhere else.

[SampleMan]

But you think Cruz can win with even less support?

Shall we call that non sequitur logic or just facts not in evidence?

Trump's negatives are off the charts. While Trump has a solid 25% the other 75% is solidly against him. As the field narrows, Trump will remain stuck where he's at, while the remaining candidates get larger and larger portions of that 75%.

[mkjessup]

KMFA, you got nothin’.

[CA Conservative]

Wait a minute - you bring up Keystone in a discussion about eminent domain as a precursor to accuse people who oppose using ED for private projects of hypocrisy (I’ve seen your act before), then you say that the fact that pipelines can be and are built without using ED is not relevant? Logic is not your strong suit, my friend.

[SampleMan]

KMFA, you got nothin’.

You have a FA? I kinda figured that's what you used it for.

[vbmoneyspender]

I don't see a basis for doctors' offices, hospitals, sports stadiums or casinos. Private entities should not be able to use eminent domain to take land that they want just because particular owners are not willing to give up their land at whatever price.

Pipelines however are different. As long as they are in essence common carrier entities that are being built not only for the benefit of oil companies that use the pipelines but also for the benefit of the general public which ultimately relies on the oil being shipped thru the pipeline, then a taking is proper.

In this regard, I believe pipelines are more equivalent to powerlines that are used to transport power across our electrical grid.

Here is a good discussion from Reason that discusses the difference between private benefit takings and semi-public takings involving pipelines. I think the article is pretty fair in acknowledging that pipelines are problematic but ultimately are probably more equivalent to the building of powerlines than to the building of casinos.

Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Eminent Domain, and the Keystone XL Pipeline

[Calpublican]

Everyone is for it for public use not to build your limo parking garage for your crappy casino.

[Calpublican]

I don’t wish to be rude but listen to yourself.

Public use for eminent domain is acceptable. Get it?

[truth_seeker]

Eminent domain for “redevelopment” of “urban blight” predated Trump by decades.

The cities decide to do something, often plan block by clock and set the wheels in motion for eminent domain, regardless of the eventual builders and projects.

[TigersEye]

Cruz knocks Kelo decision in N.H. primary February 06. 2016

Then, Cruz said "I'll tell you what I don't support. I do not support the Kelo decision, which was a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court." At this point, sporadic applause broke out behind me. Local readers of this newspaper will know the Kelo case.

Cruz continued and explained the Kelo case, "a case that said that government can condemn private property, not for public use which is what the Constitution requires, but rather to give it to a giant corporation. In the Kelo case, there was a little old lady whose home was being condemned to build a parking lot for a giant pharmaceutical company. That decision was 5-4. That decision was an outrage. That decision was an abomination."

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

How can something that will employ thousands, and be a host to millions per hear, be considered to only be for personal use?

Do you remember the Lost Liberty Hotel project?

[jospehm20]

I disagree, I do not see any difference. Texans got pretty teed off a few years ago when Governor Perry wanted to use eminent domain to build the TTC which was a massive road, rail and utility corridor being built by a private company. Private is private wether the beneficiary is a road builder, casino, football team or pipeline company. BTW, I think Texas sorely needs something like the TTC but I can understand why people were angry about ED being used to allow a private company to build and operate a road. I also think we need XL but can understand if people strongly disagree with using ED to benefit the private firm that will build and operate it. If you are really against ED being used to benefit private concerns then you have to be against using it for the XL pipeline.

[JoSixChip]

Logic is not your strong suit, my friend.

I know you are having a rough night tonight, so I will cut you some slack. But The argument was that only Trump supported ED for private projects. I simply pointed out that you, cruz and others also support it in other cases to demonstrate your hypocrisy in trying to criticize Trump on this. It had nothing to do with other types of contracts, that was nothing more then your trying to deflect rather then just admit your hypocrisy.

[Cboldt]

-- Pipelines however are different. As long as they are in essence common carrier entities that are being built not only for the benefit of oil companies that use the pipelines but also for the benefit of the general public which ultimately relies on the oil being shipped thru the pipeline, then a taking is proper. --

My point was that other people draw the line different from where you draw it. On pipelines, many people give easements and lose right to develop for a pipeline that they never get a benefit from (unlike electricity). Somebody else benefits, they just "lose." Technically, they are compensated and made whole.

Most people, offered money by a private developer, sell, at a handsome profit. Public pressure for that doctor office, hospital or sports arena can become unbearable. As population increases, so does development. Friction is inevitable.

At any rate, as a businessman, Trump used the tools. Money first, then court. he lost. bankruptcy, he probably offered a deal, was turned down, then went to court. That's the way conflicts of interest are settled. The little guy is at a disadvantage.

I don't think ED is a huge election issue. ED is problematic at local and state levels. A president has ZERO impact on it.

[mkjessup]

You are so pathetically lame, it defies belief.

Let's review:

First, DoughtyOne states that he hasn't got time to talk with you, so knowing that he won't be online, you take the opportunity to snark off with your childish "I have no inclination to listen" post, and I called YOU out on that because you obviously lack any comprehension to understand what D1 was going to explain to your impaired intellect, and I likewise pointed out that he had been posting here a LONG time before you sneaked under the back door of FR.

Then you come back with some more juvenile garbage about "internet commandoes" and the like, failing to understand that I had done nothing except highlight your own case of premature exasperation.

You conclude that childish tantrum with something about "go cry somewhere else". That is nothing more than good ol' fashioned projection on your part. You must be a very insecure individual with self-inflated importance, as you seem to be able to identify all the "fake conservatives" on FR which you deem worthy of your disdain.

To sum up: you're a punk. And an ignorant punk at that.

[jospehm20]

It is not a non sequitur. It is a question. In case you have not noticed, Cruz is not exactly universally popular. Most polls I have seen shows him with considerably less support than Trump. Cruz’s negatives may be lower according to polling data but so is his level of support according to polls I have seen. I guess we will soon see how it all plays out.