Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz Was Asked Three Years Ago About the ‘Liberty’ of Private Landowners in Eminent Domain
The Blaze ^ | February 10, 2016 | Jon Street

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016election; border; cruz; eminentdomain; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: JediJones
Just stop.

The pipeline is owned by TransCanada Corporation, a foreign company. Cruz is A-OK with ED being used for the pipeline, because ".. it would generate good, high paying jobs,". (Cruz-2014)

So to recap. Cruz is for ED being used by a foreign company as long as it creates jobs. Super Duper. So is Trump.

41 posted on 02/11/2016 4:51:35 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

The constitution calls for eminent domain with just compensation for national security infrastructure like a border wall. Not for private sector casinos.

Next?


42 posted on 02/11/2016 4:56:30 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

Seems reasonable.


43 posted on 02/11/2016 4:57:29 PM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

On second thought, Trump would probaly NOT be for ED be used by a foreign company, jobs or not.


44 posted on 02/11/2016 4:59:02 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

UNbelievably disengenuous representation of the facts worthy of the Clintons.

Only an ignoramus or a twit would put out this article.


45 posted on 02/11/2016 5:00:47 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Border security versus limousine parking lot (that was destined to become more hotel rooms because Trump isn’t a chump). How do you completely ignore the difference in public benefit between the two situations?


46 posted on 02/11/2016 5:01:52 PM PST by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

True. My point is that you can’t make a blanket case that a pipeline could never be an appropriate use of ED.


47 posted on 02/11/2016 5:02:49 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

“Public use v. Private use.”

Constitution doesn’t say that and neither did Cruz.


48 posted on 02/11/2016 5:02:50 PM PST by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
Would someone ask Cruz what is his stand on ZONING laws.

And where in the constitution does it cover ZONING LAWS?

Because LOGICALLY if you are opposed to eminent domain you must also be opposed to zoning laws.

49 posted on 02/11/2016 5:02:54 PM PST by gg188 (Ted Cruz, R - Goldman Sachs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Where does Constitution limit to public purpose?

Was there ever a time when you considered yourself a conservative?

50 posted on 02/11/2016 5:02:55 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

“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?


51 posted on 02/11/2016 5:03:57 PM PST by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Here is a quote from the Ted Cruz Facebook webpage, bragging that he is a co-sponsor of the Keystone Pipeline. How can you be for building the Keystone Pipeline, but against eminent domain?


“Passing the Keystone pipeline is a good start, but we need a job-creating energy agenda, far broader. The energy revolution that is already underway can produce the jobs and opportunities that our country needs to grow. All the federal government needs to do is get out of the way and let Americans do what they do best: dream, innovate, and prosper.”

Sen Cruz Files Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Amendments

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today introduced three pro-growth, pro-jobs amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, of which Sen. Cruz is a cosponsor.

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/676783042433999


52 posted on 02/11/2016 5:04:31 PM PST by r_barton (We the People of the United States...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gg188

Logically? The two aren’t even related.


53 posted on 02/11/2016 5:04:50 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: austinaero

Actually the Constitution very CLEARLY says ED is for public use, and the project Cruz was discussing (a border wall) would clearly fall into the public use category.


54 posted on 02/11/2016 5:05:36 PM PST by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“The constitution calls for eminent domain with just compensation for national security infrastructure like a border wall. Not for private sector casinos.

Next?”

The Constitution doesn’t mention casinos.

Next.


55 posted on 02/11/2016 5:05:46 PM PST by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

“Actually the Constitution very CLEARLY says ED is for public use, and the project Cruz was discussing (a border wall) would clearly fall into the public use category.”

And a parking lot is not used by the public and it’s tax revenues are not used by the public?


56 posted on 02/11/2016 5:07:09 PM PST by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

“...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5


57 posted on 02/11/2016 5:07:38 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: austinaero

all american land that is privately owned was originally granted by the government


58 posted on 02/11/2016 5:08:18 PM PST by Thibodeaux (leading from behind is following)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: NoDRodee

“Nobody was taking about building a wall to secure the borders until Trump brought it up this year.” Sarcasm I hope, the wall or fence was approved but not funded early in the Bush administration, I think, maybe as far back as Clinton!


59 posted on 02/11/2016 5:08:20 PM PST by qman (The communist usurper must go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Just because they happened doesn’t make them an obviously correct application of eminent domain.

My point is that there would be no westward expansion without the railroad. They enriched private companies and citizens but without ED, they wouldn't exist... and neither would we.

There are uses that benefit private companies and people that are for the greater good. Kelo? No. Kelo was about taking someone's property because they didn't pay enough property tax. The railroads and the pipeline benefit the whole country and economy. They are appropriate uses.

60 posted on 02/11/2016 5:09:04 PM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson