. . . 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).
“...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.
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.
“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?
Too right. Taking property to secure the nations borders is slightly different from taking property to give to a private developer.
I think much of thw trolling on this issue is disingenuous., and is preety much just a lie being camouflaged as ignorance.