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 ...
The pipeline is owned by TransCanada Corporation, a foreign company. Cruz is A-OK with ED being used for the pipeline, because ".. it would generate good, high paying jobs,". (Cruz-2014)
So to recap. Cruz is for ED being used by a foreign company as long as it creates jobs. Super Duper. So is Trump.
The constitution calls for eminent domain with just compensation for national security infrastructure like a border wall. Not for private sector casinos.
Next?
Seems reasonable.
On second thought, Trump would probaly NOT be for ED be used by a foreign company, jobs or not.
UNbelievably disengenuous representation of the facts worthy of the Clintons.
Only an ignoramus or a twit would put out this article.
Border security versus limousine parking lot (that was destined to become more hotel rooms because Trump isn’t a chump). How do you completely ignore the difference in public benefit between the two situations?
True. My point is that you can’t make a blanket case that a pipeline could never be an appropriate use of ED.
“Public use v. Private use.”
Constitution doesn’t say that and neither did Cruz.
And where in the constitution does it cover ZONING LAWS?
Because LOGICALLY if you are opposed to eminent domain you must also be opposed to zoning laws.
Was there ever a time when you considered yourself a conservative?
“It is kind of embarrassing that many American citizens are not aware of the distinction between takings intended for the benefit of the public (such as a border wall) and takings intended for the benefit of a private owner (such as a casino operator). “
The govt takes the land, not the casino operator. The govt takes the land and then sells it.
So taking land for Keystone is ok?
Here is a quote from the Ted Cruz Facebook webpage, bragging that he is a co-sponsor of the Keystone Pipeline. How can you be for building the Keystone Pipeline, but against eminent domain?
“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.”
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
Logically? The two aren’t even related.
Actually the Constitution very CLEARLY says ED is for public use, and the project Cruz was discussing (a border wall) would clearly fall into the public use category.
“The constitution calls for eminent domain with just compensation for national security infrastructure like a border wall. Not for private sector casinos.
Next?”
The Constitution doesn’t mention casinos.
Next.
“Actually the Constitution very CLEARLY says ED is for public use, and the project Cruz was discussing (a border wall) would clearly fall into the public use category.”
And a parking lot is not used by the public and it’s tax revenues are not used by the public?
“...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5
all american land that is privately owned was originally granted by the government
“Nobody was taking about building a wall to secure the borders until Trump brought it up this year.” Sarcasm I hope, the wall or fence was approved but not funded early in the Bush administration, I think, maybe as far back as Clinton!
My point is that there would be no westward expansion without the railroad. They enriched private companies and citizens but without ED, they wouldn't exist... and neither would we.
There are uses that benefit private companies and people that are for the greater good. Kelo? No. Kelo was about taking someone's property because they didn't pay enough property tax. The railroads and the pipeline benefit the whole country and economy. They are appropriate uses.
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.