Posted on 02/11/2016 4:06:19 PM PST by kiryandil
Ted Cruz has slammed Republican rival Donald Trump for supporting eminent domain – but it appears the Texas senator was once in favor of it, too.
In his run for the U.S. Senate in July 2012, Cruz was asked during a debate about his stance on eminent domain when it comes to securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Let me ask you about a constitutional issue: liberty," the moderator asked Cruz. "What about the liberty of the hundreds, if not thousands, of private landowners in Texas whose land would be seized by the government for what even some in your own party say would be an ineffective project? What about their liberty?"
Cruz responded by saying that he had been a longtime advocate for liberty, but added one stipulation...
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Do they not understand it or do they want to lie and spin to try and make Trump look good?
Rhetorical question.
Funny...that's the same thing the DUmmies say about conservatives.
While I tend to agree with you about the pipeline, I think a case could be made that the existence of the infrastructure to Move oil could be considered a national security interest like the electrical grid, and as such, ED might be an appropriate tool. I have my doubts, but I would at least be wiling to listen to the argument.
“Public use v. Private use. This is comparing apples to oranges.”
He’s for Keystone too. That is most certainly not “public”.
Willful blindness.
Can you point to a link showing the DUmmies who are concerned about Trump supporters flip-flopping on eminent domain?
Energy is public policy. That’s why we have a strategic petroleum reserve. We need cheap availability of energy to support potential military endeavors.
Good argument, but the electrical grid (and natural gas grid) delivers electricity to Joe Q. Public consumers. The pipeline delivers oil to refineries on the gulf coast so that they can ship refined oil to the highest bidder anyplace in the world.
All Trump has to do is show that one of Cruz’s promises is to approve the Keystone Pipeline, which would be impossible without eminent domain.
Who is for Keystone, Trump or Cruz.
If you are referring to Cruz where has he said that eminent domain should be used to complete the Keystone Pipeline. I haven’t heard anything, course I am a college student with a busy schedule so I might have missed it.
I'll give you a hint. All locations are on the Gulf Coast
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/07/donald-trump-jeb-bush-eminent-domain-and
But Steven Anderson, the Institute for Justice's managing vice president [which was the libertarian public-interest firm behind the Kelo case], 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."
“Passing the Keystone pipeline is a good start, but we need a job-creating energy agenda, far broader. The energy revolution that is already underway can produce the jobs and opportunities that our country needs to grow. All the federal government needs to do is get out of the way and let Americans do what they do best: dream, innovate, and prosper.” - Ted Cruz
Sen Cruz Files Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Amendments
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today introduced three pro-growth, pro-jobs amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, of which Sen. Cruz is a cosponsor.
https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/676783042433999
We agree. The case of a large project like that is, in priciple, no different than a strip mall in a small town. That was scotus dilemma. They couldn’t find a way to distinguish between the two with integrity, so they just approved all economic impact eminent domain. Security distinctions could be a legitimate consideration.
One thing, however. A town should be able to zone in an economic initiative. If an individual refuses to sell, then they should have to pay the new tax rates and upgrade requirements. Trump’s house lady should have had to pay the new requirements, but she also should have been able to put in a restaurant or shop or whatever in the midst of that development to enable payment of the new rates.
So sure are you? Explain the railroads.
Who does! ;-)
*****************************************************************************
It IS embarrassing. I’ve found that when a person previously knowledgeable of this distinction becomes a Donald Trump supporter, the brain cells that had retained that knowledge atrophy & die.
Funny, but I can say the EXACT SAME THING about Cruz supporters when they are confronted with the fact that Cruz was born in Canada and therefore INELIGIBLE to be president.
Also:
Most all Eminent Domain is used against Private Landowners.
The issue not taking OF private owner but FOR private purpose:
It's not that hard, think 3rd grade class, which one doesn't belong:
Border Wall for national security
Bridge for evacuating island
Tacky Hotel parking Garage
Pipeline for National resources
Last sentence of the Fifth Amendment.
Just because they happened doesn’t make them an obviously correct application of eminent domain.
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.