Amendment V says "public use" - not 'public benefit'. Private ownership is not public use. Kelo proves this because the property in question is still privately owned, yet yields zero public use (or benefit for that matter).
Kelo revisited
Posted on 01/22/2016 7:36:36 AM PST by Isara
“A fancy housing development and golf course is not the same.â€
‘It is if it creates jobs and brings economic development to the area.’
Dear G-d, when did Freepers become communist?
Seriously, this is crazy. A better answer would be “I know Trump is wrong on this, but his other qualities make up for it.”
Cruz was part of the group that proposed a law to prevent this kind of state taking.
The RINOe quashed it.
“Kelo is very unpopular with many independents as well.”
Yes. That is all they ever talk about.
Let us say all that you said is true. Where was Cruz passing legislation on the issue? Deeds not words. A president does not write law - let Cruz stay in the senate and pass such a law or get the constitution amended. Why didn’t he? Is it because Goldman Sachs benefits from redevelopments?
Cruz opposes using eminent domain for hotels, golf courses and casinos. For interstate oil piplines to supply the country with needed energy resources, it seems more appropriate.
Incredibly, Donald Trump is to the left of Bernie Sanders on this.
And the wall is national infrastructure and not a golf course. Do you see the difference, right?
So you won’t allow eminent domain for the keystone pipeline then? Private golf course, private pipeline. No difference really.
Cruz opposes using eminent domain for hotels, golf courses and casinos. For interstate oil piplines to supply the country with needed energy resources, it seems more appropriate.
The pipeline is to export to China and not for US consumption.
“2. What is at issue is the Kelo decision which allowed taking by the government and turning over to a private entity for a private purpose.”
When your land is taken, that is a distinction without a difference. My grandfather’s large pasture was cut in half for a highway.
Cool, I’d like to read that. What was it? Do ya have a link?
“Trump as an overly zealous land-grabber, profit-driven elitist and big-government liberal, prioritizing commercial interests like his own over conservative values.”
Yeah? Isn’t that what his supporters like?
Vetting won't matter with these Trump zealots. He has already said that his radically pro-abortion sister would make a good Justice. Doesn't matter.
I think you’re exaggerating both the circumstances and effects of the Kelo case, but so be it.
My vote isn’t going to turn on eminent domain, sorry. Supreme Court said it’s a go, so it’s a go.
If we have a problem with a court dictating our society, then it’s time to do something about that court, and if we do not, it will continue to dictate our society.
So far it seems we are fine with our SCOTUS gods, so whatever they say.
Sure:
Here is the house version
It stalled in the Senate thanks to McConnell, despite Cruz’s efforts.
“The decision that bears her name is a triumph of crony capitalism over Constitutional conservatism.”
So let me understand, Kelo drives the entirety of your thought processes when deciding who will best server the needs of all of us, is that right? And just where is all this “constitutional conservatism” being displayed today? All those “constitutional conservatives” in The Congress are right up there on the “firing line” working their little fingers to the bone “fixing” what’s wrong with our country, right? Yeah, I agree that Kelo was a bad deal, but the SCOTUS went along with it (with all those conservative Justices). I believe in conservative principles, but the problem I have is that the “conservatives” we elect don’t and therein lies the problem. “Pragamatic Conservatism” isn’t conservatism at all, and that’s all we have working for us today. Talk is cheap, and it’s really cheap in DC.
As defined in Amendment V? No. As defined by Kelo v. New London? Yes.
Well I would like someone to fight the SC.
Trumps position that gay marriage is settled and on ED is troubling.
Amendment V says "public use" - not 'public benefit'. Private ownership is not public use. Kelo proves this because the property in question is still privately owned, yet yields zero public use (or benefit for that matter).
Kelo revisited
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.