Why Don't the Liberals Want a Wall?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
Ask Wizzo. He knows the score but can't bring himself to utter the facts.
Trump people say she's the boogeywoman. Kind of an all-purpose response to anything crooked they do.
"Yabut, whattabout HILLARY CLINTON?"
Kit the Coyote
New member
You shall judge them by the fruit that OTHER trees bear?
WizardofOz
New member
I have no idea what you're talking about. It's the one thing you and I have in common.
:chuckle:
musterion
Well-known member
Let's see.
Does government have the legal authority to claim, with payment, private land for the needs of the nation? Don't dodge the question by trying to argue about whether you think a given need is legitimate. Does such legal authority exist?
Trump's last foray into trying to grab other people's property for his own needs, was like this:
Trump's battle with Atlantic City resident Vera Coking in the 1990s is the ultimate example of this kind of Robin-Hood-in-reverse development scheme. Coking had lived in her home since the 1960s, and had turned down another developer's $1 million offer for her house in the 1980s.
...
In the mid-1990s, Trump tried to persuade her to sell her home to make room for a parking lot for the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, which was located next door. When she refused, Trump got Atlantic City's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority to threaten to take the property using eminent domain. If she'd accepted the offer, she would have gotten $250,000 — a quarter of the price she was offered a decade earlier.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10931176/donald-trump-eminent-domain
Scorning his lowball offer as inadequate, and Trump himself as a "maggot", she fought back and kicked his pampered hiney in court.
So he's had kind of a spotty track record in using eminent domain.
Trump's battle with Atlantic City resident Vera Coking in the 1990s is the ultimate example of this kind of Robin-Hood-in-reverse development scheme. Coking had lived in her home since the 1960s, and had turned down another developer's $1 million offer for her house in the 1980s.
...
In the mid-1990s, Trump tried to persuade her to sell her home to make room for a parking lot for the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, which was located next door. When she refused, Trump got Atlantic City's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority to threaten to take the property using eminent domain. If she'd accepted the offer, she would have gotten $250,000 — a quarter of the price she was offered a decade earlier.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10931176/donald-trump-eminent-domain
Scorning his lowball offer as inadequate, and Trump himself as a "maggot", she fought back and kicked his pampered hiney in court.
So he's had kind of a spotty track record in using eminent domain.
Kit the Coyote
New member
Yes, but the Constitution requires just compensation, the definition of which can be challenged in court. And the bad news for Trump's wall, if he wants to bypass Congress, is the power is invested in the legislative branch, not the executive. Congress would have to pass a bill authorizing it.
musterion
Well-known member
I addressed that.
Kit the Coyote
New member
So you understand the complexity of the issues of using it to build the wall and why it will tie things up for years in the courts?
In fact the fencing that was to be put up in George W. Bush's time, is still in the courts.
Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of 700 miles of a physical barrier along the border and resulted in pedestrian fences 18 feet high and other small fences intended to block vehicles.
Of the more than 300 eminent cases brought in south Texas over those fences, 90 are still pending, Olivares said. The cases, which NPR documented in February, were given to one judge in Brownsville.
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/W...xico-Border-Dont-Sign-Anything-420761003.html
Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of 700 miles of a physical barrier along the border and resulted in pedestrian fences 18 feet high and other small fences intended to block vehicles.
Of the more than 300 eminent cases brought in south Texas over those fences, 90 are still pending, Olivares said. The cases, which NPR documented in February, were given to one judge in Brownsville.
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/W...xico-Border-Dont-Sign-Anything-420761003.html
musterion
Well-known member
Not the issue.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Eminent Domain and Donald Trump
By Robert Ringer
RobertRinger.com
September 22, 2016
One of a handful issues I have with Donald Trump is his appetite for eminent domain. Whenever you watch a tear-jerking eminent-domain story on television, it serves as a grim reminder that we are not, by any stretch of the imagination, totally free. So now that an eminent domain practitioner is about to become president of the United States, it’s a good time for all of us to go back and review the fundamentals of liberty.
When it comes to the question of eminent domain, we must always remind ourselves that there are only three possible ways to view property:
1. Anyone has a right to interfere with or take anyone else’s property whenever he pleases.
2. Some people have a right to interfere with or take the property of other people whenever they please.
3. No one has a right to interfere with or take anyone else’s property — at any time — without his permission.
In number one, I’m talking about lawlessness and the absence of a generally accepted code of conduct. In virtually all countries of the world, governments at least make a pretense of trying to prevent blatant lawlessness.
Obviously, some governments do a better job at this than others. Your property is a lot safer in, say, Australia than it is in Kenya. But regardless of the geographic location, it is the government’s primary job, at least in theory, to protect the lives and property of its citizens. In fact, many would argue that this is the government’s only legitimate function.
Number two is where eminent domain comes in. For example, politically well-connected real estate developers are often able to get the government to use force to take people’s property. The government then unilaterally decides how much to pay the owner of the property for the involuntary sale.
Likewise, all redistribution-of-the-wealth schemes are examples of taking one person’s property and giving it to another without the property owner’s permission. Given that this is, on its face, an uncivilized action, it would be fair to say that all countries today are, to one extent or another, uncivilized.
Finally, we get to number three: No one has a right to interfere with or take anyone else’s property — at any time — without his permission. While this is unlikely to become a reality anytime soon, anywhere on this planet, it is the standard that all civilized people of goodwill should use as a guide to their actions.
Put another way, the most fundamental rule of liberty is that no one has any right to interfere with or take anyone else’s property at any time — which includes his body and everything he owns — regardless of the rationale used. The usual excuse given for taking someone’s property by force is that it’s for “the overall good” of the community or society. The reality, however, is that it’s usually in the best interest of some real estate developer (who makes money by building on the poached property) and the government (which makes money from the property’s increased tax base).
People inflicted with that serious mental disorder is known as “socialism” would have you believe that freedom and property rights are two different issues, but don’t allow yourself to buy into this warped argument. Property rights are just a subcategory of freedom.
It is morally self-evident that every person has a right to enjoy all of the fruits of his labor without interference from anyone else. When a person’s property rights are violated, his freedom is violated. Period. Compassion for one’s fellow man — which is a noble emotion — is a totally separate subject that should not be allowed to obscure the liberty axiom that property rights are sacred.
Plain and simple, Natural Law requires that liberty must be given a higher priority than all other objectives. Once we get that little issue squared away, we can do a much better job of helping those who are truly in need and truly unable to help themselves. First things first — and liberty always comes first. Eminent domain is tyranny, not liberty.
C’mon, Donald, if you’re smart enough to figure out that Barack Obama was born in the United States (a cough, cough … no comment), you’re smart enough to figure out that eminent domain is anti-freedom.
By Robert Ringer
RobertRinger.com
September 22, 2016
One of a handful issues I have with Donald Trump is his appetite for eminent domain. Whenever you watch a tear-jerking eminent-domain story on television, it serves as a grim reminder that we are not, by any stretch of the imagination, totally free. So now that an eminent domain practitioner is about to become president of the United States, it’s a good time for all of us to go back and review the fundamentals of liberty.
When it comes to the question of eminent domain, we must always remind ourselves that there are only three possible ways to view property:
1. Anyone has a right to interfere with or take anyone else’s property whenever he pleases.
2. Some people have a right to interfere with or take the property of other people whenever they please.
3. No one has a right to interfere with or take anyone else’s property — at any time — without his permission.
In number one, I’m talking about lawlessness and the absence of a generally accepted code of conduct. In virtually all countries of the world, governments at least make a pretense of trying to prevent blatant lawlessness.
Obviously, some governments do a better job at this than others. Your property is a lot safer in, say, Australia than it is in Kenya. But regardless of the geographic location, it is the government’s primary job, at least in theory, to protect the lives and property of its citizens. In fact, many would argue that this is the government’s only legitimate function.
Number two is where eminent domain comes in. For example, politically well-connected real estate developers are often able to get the government to use force to take people’s property. The government then unilaterally decides how much to pay the owner of the property for the involuntary sale.
Likewise, all redistribution-of-the-wealth schemes are examples of taking one person’s property and giving it to another without the property owner’s permission. Given that this is, on its face, an uncivilized action, it would be fair to say that all countries today are, to one extent or another, uncivilized.
Finally, we get to number three: No one has a right to interfere with or take anyone else’s property — at any time — without his permission. While this is unlikely to become a reality anytime soon, anywhere on this planet, it is the standard that all civilized people of goodwill should use as a guide to their actions.
Put another way, the most fundamental rule of liberty is that no one has any right to interfere with or take anyone else’s property at any time — which includes his body and everything he owns — regardless of the rationale used. The usual excuse given for taking someone’s property by force is that it’s for “the overall good” of the community or society. The reality, however, is that it’s usually in the best interest of some real estate developer (who makes money by building on the poached property) and the government (which makes money from the property’s increased tax base).
People inflicted with that serious mental disorder is known as “socialism” would have you believe that freedom and property rights are two different issues, but don’t allow yourself to buy into this warped argument. Property rights are just a subcategory of freedom.
It is morally self-evident that every person has a right to enjoy all of the fruits of his labor without interference from anyone else. When a person’s property rights are violated, his freedom is violated. Period. Compassion for one’s fellow man — which is a noble emotion — is a totally separate subject that should not be allowed to obscure the liberty axiom that property rights are sacred.
Plain and simple, Natural Law requires that liberty must be given a higher priority than all other objectives. Once we get that little issue squared away, we can do a much better job of helping those who are truly in need and truly unable to help themselves. First things first — and liberty always comes first. Eminent domain is tyranny, not liberty.
C’mon, Donald, if you’re smart enough to figure out that Barack Obama was born in the United States (a cough, cough … no comment), you’re smart enough to figure out that eminent domain is anti-freedom.
Kit the Coyote
New member
On a related note. GoFundMe is shutting down the "We the People Will Fund the Wall" campaign and refunding the money raised. The fund's organizer, Brian Kolfage never made it clear how he was going to give the money to the US Government as current law does not allow money to be donated directly to a specific government function but only to general treasury fund. Kolfage this month decided to use the money to create a non-profit organization dedicated to building the wall. GoFundMe said this was changing the intended use of the money raised and thus a violation of the rules.
Who is Donald Trump? :idunno:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
barbie's obsession
Orangemanbaaaaaaa@@@@@d!!!!!111
musterion
Well-known member