Where does prez The Donald stand on the Feds' Power of Eminent Domain

[JBvM]

Where does prez The Donald stand on the Feds' Power of Eminent Domain

"Historically, sovereigns would exercise this power in whatever manner they saw fit. However, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution places an important limitation on the power of eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment says, in part: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This part of the Fifth Amendment is known as the “takings” clause. Although the Fifth Amendment technically only applies to the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has ruled that the takings clause applies fully to the states via incorporation to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (this “incorporation” doctrine is a subject that is discussed in the Constitutional Law course). Therefore, all the states and federal government are bound by the rules discussed in the rest of this subchapter."

Eminent Domain and Just Compensation - LawShelf Educational Media

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If someone is willing to pay more real estate tax, the government can take your property and hand it over to them.

 

[JBvM]

If someone is willing to pay more real estate tax, the government can take your property and hand it over to them.

that is Trump's stance. I doubt he could discuss the usc wording in a coherent manner

 

[JBvM]

If someone is willing to pay more real estate tax, the government can take your property and hand it over to them.

and Frank, The Donald is shitting all over Reagan's legacy. How could you compare them side by side LOL

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If someone is willing to pay more real estate tax, the government can take your property and hand it over to them.

It doesn't matter what he thinks! The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Kelo v. City of New London. I suggest you read it. Maybe the court will revisit the issue again.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Where does prez The Donald stand on the Feds' Power of Eminent Domain

"Historically, sovereigns would exercise this power in whatever manner they saw fit. However, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution places an important limitation on the power of eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment says, in part: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This part of the Fifth Amendment is known as the “takings” clause. Although the Fifth Amendment technically only applies to the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has ruled that the takings clause applies fully to the states via incorporation to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (this “incorporation” doctrine is a subject that is discussed in the Constitutional Law course). Therefore, all the states and federal government are bound by the rules discussed in the rest of this subchapter."

Eminent Domain and Just Compensation - LawShelf Educational Media

There is a case now in Fla, the land was bought across Fla to build a Cross Canal system for moving cargo across Fla. The Fed came in to forced all the land owners to give up the land. After a period of time they found that it would cause salt water in show up in the water in South Fla and make it unlivable with no drinking water. The people wanted their land and houses back, the government said no....I have no idea how this turned out or it might still be a pending case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If someone is willing to pay more real estate tax, the government can take your property and hand it over to them.

that is Trump's stance. I doubt he could discuss the usc wording in a coherent manner

No. That's actually Kelo vs. New London

 

[JBvM]

If someone is willing to pay more real estate tax, the government can take your property and hand it over to them.

It doesn't matter what he thinks! The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Kelo v. City of New London. I suggest you read it. Maybe the court will revisit the issue again.

It does matter what he thinks. Why don't you try listening to others rather than listening to yourself bloviate.

no lectures on eminent domain needed here .. especially from the Admiral of McHales' Navy

 

[JBvM]

If someone is willing to pay more real estate tax, the government can take your property and hand it over to them.

that is Trump's stance. I doubt he could discuss the usc wording in a coherent manner

No. That's actually Kelo vs. New London

really?

facts matter: {{meta.pageTitle}} 6 of the 9 justices were conservatives and look at how Reagan appointees voted LOL
In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where does prez The Donald stand on the Feds' Power of Eminent Domain

"Historically, sovereigns would exercise this power in whatever manner they saw fit. However, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution places an important limitation on the power of eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment says, in part: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This part of the Fifth Amendment is known as the “takings” clause. Although the Fifth Amendment technically only applies to the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has ruled that the takings clause applies fully to the states via incorporation to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (this “incorporation” doctrine is a subject that is discussed in the Constitutional Law course). Therefore, all the states and federal government are bound by the rules discussed in the rest of this subchapter."

Eminent Domain and Just Compensation - LawShelf Educational Media

There is a case now in Fla, the land was bought across Fla to build a Cross Canal system for moving cargo across Fla. The Fed came in to forced all the land owners to give up the land. After a period of time they found that it would cause salt water in show up in the water in South Fla and make it unlivable with no drinking water. The people wanted their land and houses back, the government said no....I have no idea how this turned out or it might still be a pending case.

I think you might need to do some research. The Cross Florida barge canal was to run from Jacksonville via the St. Johns River through northern Florida to the Gulf of Mexico. I used to fish the Rodman Reservoir which was built for that purpose. It was never completely built but that is not why. South Florida is hundreds of miles away.

However, your comments about imminent domain were spot on!

 

[JBvM]

In order to build his much-ballyhooed wall across the Mexican border, Donald Trump is likely to have use eminent domain to seize large amounts of private property. But as legal scholar Gerald Dickinson explains in a recent Washington Post article, that may not be easy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/05/potential-pitfalls-of-building-trumps-great-wall-of-eminent-domain/

David Boaz of the Cato Institute has an excellent article summarizing Donald Trump’s shameful history of promoting eminent domain abuse for the purpose of seizing property from homeowners and businesses who refuse to sell to him:

Opinion | Donald Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse

Admiral Rockwell Tory contrary to your statement that it doesn't matter what Trump thinks about the issue, it does matter. It goes to the man's character and evilness

 

[DGS49]

Trump's experience with Eminent Domain (and the lack of it) is fairly well known. I saw a documentary a few years ago about a resort Trump is building (and built?) in Scotland where a few holdouts prevented him from building out as he originally intended. Apparently Scotland either doesn't have an eminent domain law or they refused to use it for h is benefit.

There is no telling whether his position as a real estate developer and his position as President will be the same.

Regardless, if Kelo came before the now-Kavanaugh-influenced Court, the result would be the opposite.

In my opinion. Conservatives are not so willing to be creative with the clear language.