Posted on 10/06/2015 5:48:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I think it is not dumbing down anything to say that ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing. Your property is your tie to family, work, interests, choices, etc. It is not to say that things define a person. It is only to say that property is about personal freedom and choices and to forcefully take it away is to deny that.
Something that was brought up in a recent fight here in central IN over Industrial Wind Turbine farms was that it wasn’t unreasonable to foresee a time where government could force them on communities.
Even though it was German owned energy companies reaping the subsidies and selling the juice for their own profit, they could just take the land the way they do for power lines.
(BTW...we beat JUWI and sent them packing. And the local pols that approved a previous E-on farm were all primaried out)
DT still better than all the other open border traitors
I don’t care what you think my property is worth. IT IS MY PROPERTY. You have no right to take my property. How do people on this website not get this. Trump lemmings.
Some eminent domain is understandable if it is for public use like in the building of roads. It should be as limited as humanly possible. What is deplorable is the taking of property from one and giving it to another just to increase tax revenue.
I'm a Trump supporter and I absolutely HATE this about him, just as I hate all his talk about fed.gov healthcare.
These things however aren't deal killers. The bought and paid for alternatives are far worse, and I've learned a long time ago that every politician has things I hate about him. Including Ronald Reagan.
It's kind of a moot issue anyway, as there isn't much any candidate can do about Kelo.
“Can’t fault a businessman for pursuing all legal avenues to achieve an objective. “
So the attitude of that businessman — who later runs for President — about property rights is acceptable? You do know Trump supports the Kelo decision, right? That was soundly and universally condemned here in FR. Interesting how things change...
If Trump had stated that there has never been a case of eminent domain being used as a result of abuse of power, then I would have a real problem with that. Because there have been several examples of eminent domain being used for political and/or personal gain in a clear cut case of abuse of power. But eminent domain does indeed have it positives, and so I chose to agree with the statement he made, until you can bring me proof that Trump believes all eminent domain usage is positive.
Virginia Passes Eminent Domain Constitutional Amendment
In 2007, responding to the backlash against the Supreme Court decision (KELO v. City of New London) allowing the government to use the power of eminent domain for economic development, Virginia passed a law restricting that power. On Tuesday, the State of Virginia went even further and passed a state constitutional amendment that requires the government to compensate landowners and business owners not only for the value of condemned property, but for lost benefits and lost access to their property. Opponents of the amendment believe the amendment is an overreaction to Kelo and fear that the new law will open up a Pandora's Box of litigation that leaves taxpayers footing the bill for claims of "lost profits" arising from street widenings to street closures during parades and festivals. Proponents of the law agree that "lost profits and lost access" could end up making roads and other projects more expensive to build.
As of June 2012, 44 states have enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. Of those states, 22 passed laws that severely inhibited the takings allowed by the Kelo decision, while many enacted laws that placed some limits on the power of municipalities to invoke eminent domain for economic development. In 2008, California passed Proposition 99 adding a constitutional amendment which basically set forth existing state law that public entities could not condemn private property that is owner-occupied to transfer to a private person/developer (except under specific circumstances such as an emergency).
When the public use becomes to resell it to a private party for an expected public gain... we have a blurring of the lines. Granted.
The right approach to this does not even involve Trump because it would be a constitutional amendment to specifically exclude that kind of use from the definition of public use. What could Trump even do, if he said what everybody seems to be asking him to say. He would get well wishes, which with $2.50 gets you a coffee at Starbucks. And it would bring America no closer to an actual answer.
Like bicycle paths.
You first denied that things define a person and then said that they do....
Let’s be reasonable here. I don’t think anybody is defending ED. We have a RINO crew hell-bent on shoving illegal aliens as “pathways” to citizenship, who broke the law FIRST by just being here and they want to reward them. I’m talking about Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and the whole entire corrupt crew talking about “pathways”.
We have another guy, talking about shipping them all back and enforcing existing laws (as they should be). He has a serious case of foot-in-mouth, but what he says burns libs & rino’s like acid in the eyes.
I would rather save what’s left of our culture than allow it to be swallowed up by 3rd world heathens (muslims/illegals). Nobody else is taking this issue seriously. I’ve lived in Mexico, I know how it’s run and I imagine you wouldn’t like it since the standard FR AMISH jokes run amok here whenever idiot turd worlders do what they normally do and it makes the news.
Once America is gone, it’s gone. There’s never going to be “another election” to get it back (I think we’re too far gone IMHO anyways), but hey Trump at least speaks about making a stand.
Which is far more than any of the other clowns on stage are doing. Yes that includes Ted “Pathway” Cruz.
That is true, and I understand she passed away and her sons sold the house for $500,000. Should have taken the first offer.
Heck, if someone offer to buy my house for $1 million, heck I will toss in the furniture, dishes, and even my underwear. Except I’m taking my pet with me. =)
I support Trump and disagree with his views on eminent domain. But he has not backed down on his view. I disagree with his view, but so far, the other pluses out weigh the minuses in this instance. If the issue of eminent domain comes up during his presidency, then I would hope he would become enlightened and at least fight to make certain that there is some ratio of compensation, like maybe 5x market value or some other such thing.
In other words, I would like to see the little guy compensated more than justly for having to give up his meager castle.
I don’t agree with him at all on this.....but besides Cruz everyone else running is a joke. So if Trump is the last one standing he gets my vote.
For those of them that consider themselves intelligent beyond your imagination, these dolts have no clue what it is accept that your stealing a house from a poor person and putting them in the streets
Go Big Government! Hurrah Democrats!
You must be reading different threads, because the Trumpettes here sure support eminent domain. Including you.
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.