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 stipulation: “The Constitution also provides that property can be taken with due process of law and just compensation, and with respect to securing the borders, it is a national security issue,” Cruz said.
South Carolinans don't like Lawyer talk
Public use v. Private use. This is comparing apples to oranges.
Couldn't add that extra sentence huh? Who would have thought that Cruz agreed with eminent domain for the very narrow and public purposes defined in the constitution.
Where does Constitution limit to public purpose?
It's an excerpt.
ping
Isn’t that under the Convenient Cruz Clause? :)
It didn't and was left to the states. That is what went wrong with the Kelo decision that forced the states to clean up their eminent domain laws to prevent the taking for 'economic development'.
You left out the part where he’s for eminent domain to secure the border.
Thanks for reminding us that Cruz was for building a wall long before it was a glimmer in Trump’s eye.
. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As such, the use of eminent domain for building a wall along the border with Mexico is perfectly constitutional as long as the owners of any properties taken in order to build the wall are paid just compensation.
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).
Well played.
The Fifth amendment
The fence /wall would be a legitimate public use.
The pipeline would not be obviously legitimate.
Then if your trying to say that Ted Cruz supports eminent domain like Trump you have failed to grasp the point Cruz took. Under the Constitution, the Federal government under certain circumstances to promote the General Welfare, Common Defense, or Domestic Tranquility, through legal due process can take land for federal use. This is drastically different from Trumps assertion, that for the betterment of business interests of a few, special interests of one party or another, or the betterment of government interests. That you can take someones property. The main difference is that Cruz’s option is covered and legal under our Constitution, while Trumps version is not. Big difference, and if you are going to put things on and have headlines that say one thing, and articles that say the opposite. At least post enough of the article so that we can know that the Headline is wrong.
“...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).”
*****************************************************************************
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.
What is public use?
Thanks for your post. I hope Cruz gets a chance Saturday to educate folks on Eminent Domain, and distinguish it from Eminent Domain abuse
Its kind of embarrassing that way too many Freepers do not understand this distinction.
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.