So far no one has died as a result of eminent domain.
Can’t say the same about illegals.
The media continues the labor of parsing every syllable that Trump utters searching for a weakness that will resonate. Trump is not the perfect candidate. There is no perfect candidate. Waiting for one will be ultimately self-defeating. But compare Trump to what we have now in the presidency and he would seem to be a gift from the heavens.
For the record, I am hoping Ted Cruz gets the nomination but would certainly vote for Trump if it came down to that.
It was not too many years ago on FR, that if you defended eminent domain, you were SATAN. I will be interested in seeing the reaction to this from Trump’s supporters.
I have a problem with eminent domain. I saw a wonderful little family business get scooped up that way. However that’s not my 2016 major issue. immigration is. I sincerely hope that Mr Trump will not allow himself to get sidelined this way in future interviews.
FUDT
I disagree with him on this one.
I’m dead set against eminent domain for private developers. But he did offer the lady in Atlantic City 2 million bucks which is so much more generous than when I was involved in an eminent domain dispute in Long Branch, NJ. Private beach front homeowners there were offered peanuts (to use a Trumpean word).
There is a difference between eminent domain and the New London case.
dang, I wish he did not say that. I wish Cruz wasn’t for H1b’s. Well, being here in Calif. it does not matter who I want to vote for anyway.
Trump’s stance on emanate domain is wrong, dead wrong. Strike one. But he is the only candidate left in the game.
Whether the homeowner is offered some compensation or not is immaterial. If they don’t want to relinquish that property and the local government ultimately seizes it a la the Kelo action, then we’re no longer living in a free country.
I disagree with him on this...but he’s owning up to it and not trying to come up with some mealy-mouthed way of sliming his way out of it with pc bs. That’s what you call a straight shooter in my book.
The way I understand it, Trump wanted to build something someplace and attempted to obtain the land in question. The landowner refused the offer so Trump availed himself of the court system. Maybe he succeeded, maybe he didn't. I don't profess to know how the situation turned out. But it was up to the courts to determine whether or not the project Trump was attempting to develop was a valid case of "public use" or not.
Can't fault a businessman for pursuing all legal avenues to achieve an objective. We all remember this past summer when Trump wanted to take his helicopter to the Iowa State Fair so he could give free rides to children. The Iowa State Fair denied him permission to land his helicopter on their grounds so Trump made a deal with an adjacent landowner. We all cheered Trump for finding a legal way to get what he wanted and we all said that this is the kind of can-do spirit we need in Washington.
Sorry to rain on the Trump gauntlet, but The Donald says he’s in favor of eminent domain, Trump is `right’: “eminent domain” is the law of the land.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
**nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.**
What chaps Americans’ butts is the taking of private property for private use, and understandably so since it is unconstitutional.
Kelo v. New London
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
I’m not a big fan of eminate domain. It’s very hard to take. That being said as a property owner living in an area consider prime commercial or widening roads and carving into my yard! It’s a double jeopardy situation. You get screwed either way! I have a business across the street from me and I fought against it. I live in a prime commercial area only because I face a highway.
DT still better than all the other open border traitors
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).