Donald Trump: Don't hand federal lands to states

Actually, it is to protect the people by giving the government a system to seize the land. You still don't understand that, do you?

"eminant domanin" is very specific - as is the Constitution, about what property the government can own, and what it can be used for ... which does not include PUBLIC USE - or cattle grazing

when the gov owns the land, it will control food production, and it will all go to feed himself - you obviously do not appreciate the Constitution, which insured that that, would never happen

No big deal! Sorry for being so snarky in my response.

Who is denying, parsley? I simply said that a Trump/Paul ticket would be a balanced ticket for the Republican party?
Like I said before, I know longer wear rose colored glasses. I have watched as both parties change rules at the last moment, ignore votes from the floor, and control outcomes for so long I truly doubt that if every voter voted for Trump he would get in, if the Republican party doesn't take him out before.
And we will have another Bush/Clinton battle and the oligarchy will continue

Okay, you are just restating what I posted about the Constitutionality of Eminent Domain except with your delusional bias. What is the point of responding if you are just going to begrudgingly agree?

Dumb dumb, he is part of the coalition of super-rich who run the world, he's going to screw you over way faster than your uncle ricardo did

Once again, Eminent Domain can not be used by the government to take a citizen's property so it can give it to another citizen or private company.

It can only be used to take property for public use (roads, government buildings, bases, etc...)

Please stop trying to say the former is the same as the latter.

You're better than that...

Got it right this time! : P

y'all are serious? I took that as a joke to mean Trump would use imminent domain to take the oil. And that put me on the floor laughing

It provides no such "system" it provides restrictions. The "system" for grabbing property is elsewhere, not in the 5th amendment. You are the one who does not understand.

Should we post the entire 5th here so that you can gain a little understanding?

" Amendment V

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 offense 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 "

Now tell me please, exactly what "system" was enumerated in that? None. It simply states that when property is taken for public use, it cannot be done without "just compensation."

I wish I could. They drank the Trump kool-aid! Kimmie, I had faith we would make a better choice this election but I am not to sure! Trump is no good for our country and if people vote for him and he wins we get what we deserve!
I really thought my fellow Americans were smarter than this! It's so disheartening!

Educate yourself on how he operates. What if you were elderly and loved your home but he found YOUR house unacceptable and better suited for a parking lot or city fountain?

This is all about LAND GRAB through politicians to up taxes. He is one of those politicians who greases hands to get what he wants.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that NOBODY likes Eminent Domain but understands the justification behind it. It violates one of our core principle values of freedom which is the right to total property ownership but it also reflects the idea of doing what is best for the Republic.

As for this being a black eye for Trump, it is only if you wish it to be. It is a none issue and is just a simple grain in the few pieces of dirt they have managed to dig up on him to hurt his successful campaign.

He is the man we need for the job and his business practices shouldn't be viewed as his policy in the Oval Office. Two entirely different objectives which require two entirely different means to achieve success. It isn't an issue unless you want them to be. But I can't guarantee people will take you seriously.

By requiring just compensation and the need for the land to be used for the public, it in effect outlines how the government can seize land. Provide just compensation and reason that reflects the intentions above. Stop trying to find arguments were there aren't any.

Oregon currently retains ownership of only about 769,000 acres, or approximately 1/4th of its
original trust land grant, due in large part to a state policy of liquidating trust lands during the years
immediately following statehood.

[link to www.lincolninst.edu (secure)]

I wasn't referring to any specific case here. Just telling people who didn't know that it was in the Constitution, since some posters before said it wasn't. Not even referring to Trump or anyone else in the post, just the act of Eminent Domain.

You do realize every nook and cranny of the federal government has long been bought and paid for by the mega corporations and their interests, right?

Odd. So many people think we need a "business man" to be president because he understands things, and the country is like a big business. I would almost bet you were one of those people.

Now you want us to believe that being a business man and the president are mutually exclusive fields of endeavor.

Which one is it?

And when someone like Trump tries to take a woman's house to build a casino, it's "eminent domain," not a greedy business man who wants to make a profit. Oh, wait it IS a greedy dude, but that's okay, it doesn't reflect on what he would be as president. Just because he's willing to shaft someone to get what he wants doesn't mean he'll do that as president. After all, character doesn't matter, results do.

Sheesh! Go drink some more Trump-Aid.

Last Edited by Mr. Cynic on 01/24/2016 10:52 PM

they ended up "owning" whats under the land - resources

But this is one of the reasons that I think Trump is perfect for what he is doing. I do not think he will take that lying down, if anything, it will just split open the whole charade for everyone to see. I don't think there is any harm in that.

I don't see Trump and Paul working well together. Rand came out of nowhere swinging against him; and it has all been downhill from there.

I would not be surprised if at some point, Rand Paul says he likes Sanders better than Trump. He seems vindictive to me and I don't like his voting record. Nor do I think Trump needs him. Rand Paul, and his supporters (not you, but others) are diluting what could be a terrific majority and I really hate to see that.

I dont like anyone who wants to reserve lands to federal government control. Especially whne the federal government wants to give away land for their own debt? Especially to china and other U.N. coalition nations, who want a borderless world.

then how do you explain 2005's Kelo v. City of New London? and its impact on the commonly held beliefs on eminent domain laws?

Sheesh right back at you bud. I lost my job and my house under the Obama regime and I sure as hell didn't get 5 million for the deal.

Do not care about old lady holdout.

Oh no, no, no........THIS is about a man who consistently USES political muscle and laws to get what he wants at the expense of others. NO ONE should be able to tell you move from your house because they want it for personal gain.

One incident? Others don't fight back like she did. They quietly go away.

He BULLIED an elderly widow out of her home of 30 years FOR HIS PARKING LOT! They consistently bullied her, dropped building materials ON HER ROOF, causing a fire one time and causing much damage to force her to leave.

You want THIS guy running the country? Use your head.

Just as long as a he validates their racist ideals.

Donald's not going to dismantle the Government, he's just gonna
get rid of all the douchebags.

.

You're back-tracking. You said it gave a "system" for .gov to seize land. You said that eminent domain is in the Constitution. Both those claims are flat out wrong.

Eminent domain existed long before the Constitution, but previously whenever .gov (monarchy or otherwise) wanted it, they just took it. The consitution provided restrictions by stating that .gov couldn't do that without compensating the owner of the property.

I'm not trying to find any argument, I'm pointing out the serious flaws in yours.

I don't know how many conversations you have with people in person but charging somebody with believing what you think everyone else believes is not an acceptable practice where I am from. Nobody I know claims that he will be a good president because he is a great businessman.

Now you could fairly say that because he has the tact and shrewdness to become successful at business that he may also apply that to the oval office and excel in that position as well. But you wouldn't say he would use his same business practices and apply them to the US legal system because they are mutually different.

So again, stop telling me what I said and start reading what I'm saying. Several times out loud if it helps.

No its not

Agreed
It would be sold to foriegn entities are global corporations that have no skin in the care of this nation

I'm not backtracking from anything, you are still digging deep for that argument so that I can respond and then you can respond back because it makes you feel like you haven't lost a bit of dignity when you were called out on making assumptions.

Eminent Domain is in the constitution. It provides limitations that in effect, provide measures to properly enact a claim of Eminent Domain. Nobody is arguing that it didn't exist before. Now I think I will leave you with this as the last response unless you decide to actually address the issues being discussed and stop trying to shift it to something unrelated.