Trump's Wall And Eminent Domain...

[koshergrl]

The law is clear. There will be no long lawsuits.

like the long law suit that an old lady handcuffed Trump to the court with when he tried to steal her hose ans build a parking lot?

That wasn't a case eminent domain.

and you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground ..


In 1993, Donald Trump bought several lots around his Atlantic City casino and hotel, intending to build a parking lot designed for limousines.[3] Coking, who had lived in her house at that time for 32 years, refused to sell. As a result, the city condemned her house, using the power of eminent domain. She was offered $251,000,[4] which was about one quarter of what she was offered by Guccione 10 years earlier.

With the assistance of the Institute for Justice, Coking fought the local authorities and eventually prevailed.[5] Superior Court Judge Richard Williams ruled that because there were "no limits" on what Trump could do with the property, the plan to take Coking's property did not meet the test of law. But Williams' ruling did not reject the practice of using eminent domain to take private property from one individual and transferring it to another, which would eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelo v. City of New London.

Two other properties that prevailed against eminent domain eventually did sell: Sabatini's restaurant received $2.1 million and a pawnshop sold for $1.6 million. Their lots became part of a large lawn flanking a taxi stand for Trump's casino.[1][6] Coking remained in her house until 2010, when she moved to a retirement home in the San Francisco Bay Area near her daughter and grandchildren.


an old woman tied him up in court for 11 years,and never gave up her home .. wait until Texas Ranchers get him by the nutsack,

Where are all these pissed ranchers you keep babbling about? Post your source.

The land belonged to the US gummit.

Just build the wall on the other side of those complaining.

Trump's Wall may be crumbling before it's even begun being built. Texans don't just roll over to Government. They will fight.

As a Texan who's lived near the border,I can tell you with complete confidence that the vast majority want the wall or some kind of protection against the invaders.
They cut their fences releasing cattle,break into their houses and leave garbage everywhere.

I want better border security too. But is Government seizing Citizens' lands really the answer? I can't support that.

Bullshit story.
Obama seized a shitload of land....so did Clinton and claimed it was national park property

This is just a fake news story.

yah, natl review wsj fake news. LOL

No, it's not. But lefties like to pretend it is because it means they don't have to address the shit that the actual fake news outlets refuse to cover.

In other words, ad hom. You aren't addressing the issue, you're opting out by calling names.

The fact of the matter is, yup, Obama grabbed a shit ton of land. And that is ending. If Trump can't get that land returned to the people, then he's going to fire all the government pigs that are in the agencies that patrol it. BLM, the National Parks Serivce, the EPA, the USFWS.

Kiss your fucking jobs bye bye, Dept. of Inferior scum.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Find one Texas rancher on the Mexican border who voted DEM.
These ranchers have already made deals with the Gov. to lease the land.
They are getting a lot more in lease fees than they get from grazing a few head of cattle on the narrow strips of land involved.
Everyone is happy with the deals except the mexican cartels and the DEM party who are watching tens of thousands of illegals, who they assumed are one day going to vote DEM now being kept out of the US.
Maybe the DEMs should be going back to the negro 'well' again.

Did they have a choice? So no, 'Everyone' is definitely not happy. Many don't want to give up their lands for the Wall. They're shocked and angry that it's gonna be done by force.

Some probably won't have to move very far. A lot of that area is small-ish houses on a lot of land.

There's nothing wrong with imminent domain in this situation. Sure there will be a holdout here and there. They'll get money and move and that will be that.

For the safety and security of the country, that's pretty much the ONLY time it's prescribed.

Dems don't get it. They never will.

I'm not a Democrat.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

That quote has absolutely nothing to do with a border wall. You're taking a great quote and twisting it to suit your opinion.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Looks like Trump is planning to seize Citizens' lands to get the Wall built. It's mainly gonna happen in Texas. But are Texans gonna just sit back and allow the Government to take their lands? I wouldn't bet on it. I'm a Trump supporter and fully support revamping and improving our Immigration System. Because i do feel the System is in ruins. It is time to move towards ending Illegal Immigration all-together.

But that being said, i can't support Eminent Domain. I can't support forcing Citizens to give up their lands for the Wall. There has to be other solutions for those areas. And honestly, I actually find Trump's beliefs on Eminent Domain to be pretty disturbing.

What are your thoughts?

/---- Texans will welcome the wall to stop the hordes of undocumented democrats pouring over the border.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That wasn't a case eminent domain.

and you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground ..


In 1993, Donald Trump bought several lots around his Atlantic City casino and hotel, intending to build a parking lot designed for limousines.[3] Coking, who had lived in her house at that time for 32 years, refused to sell. As a result, the city condemned her house, using the power of eminent domain. She was offered $251,000,[4] which was about one quarter of what she was offered by Guccione 10 years earlier.

With the assistance of the Institute for Justice, Coking fought the local authorities and eventually prevailed.[5] Superior Court Judge Richard Williams ruled that because there were "no limits" on what Trump could do with the property, the plan to take Coking's property did not meet the test of law. But Williams' ruling did not reject the practice of using eminent domain to take private property from one individual and transferring it to another, which would eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelo v. City of New London.

Two other properties that prevailed against eminent domain eventually did sell: Sabatini's restaurant received $2.1 million and a pawnshop sold for $1.6 million. Their lots became part of a large lawn flanking a taxi stand for Trump's casino.[1][6] Coking remained in her house until 2010, when she moved to a retirement home in the San Francisco Bay Area near her daughter and grandchildren.


an old woman tied him up in court for 11 years,and never gave up her home .. wait until Texas Ranchers get him by the nutsack,

Where are all these pissed ranchers you keep babbling about? Post your source.

Do you watch Fox News? They just did a report on the issue. Some are gonna fight the Government on this. It's gonna be in the courts for years. If Trump goes this route, he'll never see a Wall.

As I said earlier the solution is simple.
You build the wall until you hit the holdouts property thus funneling all illegal traffic onto his property.
We'll see how long he holds out.

That's Un-American Bullshite.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

You didnt like my other option of giving them a choice.
They can live on the south side of the wall or the north side,their choice.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Find one Texas rancher on the Mexican border who voted DEM.
These ranchers have already made deals with the Gov. to lease the land.
They are getting a lot more in lease fees than they get from grazing a few head of cattle on the narrow strips of land involved.
Everyone is happy with the deals except the mexican cartels and the DEM party who are watching tens of thousands of illegals, who they assumed are one day going to vote DEM now being kept out of the US.
Maybe the DEMs should be going back to the negro 'well' again.

Did they have a choice? So no, 'Everyone' is definitely not happy. Many don't want to give up their lands for the Wall. They're shocked and angry that it's gonna be done by force.

Who exactly is upset? You obviously have a link to a story. Go ahead and post it. Curious about all the Texans on the border that are pro illegal immigration.

So, Citizens fighting against Government seizing their lands = Them being 'Pro-Illegal Immigration?'

Wow, pretty warped thinking there.

You claimed Texans on the border are pissed about the wall. Where did you get this information? Stop dodging.

The info's out there. Many Texans especially, are shocked and angry. Many actually supported Trump and the Wall. But now they're realizing the costs. It's not just about the money, they're gonna see their lands seized by the Government.

/---- oh quiet down woman

 

[Dschrute3]

What if it were your lands? Would you see things differently?

You can't inject "feelings" into the equation when our national security is the topic

Nah, i think feelings are a part of it. What if it was your property?

Of course they're involved on the land owners part but that has nothing to do with the rights of the country to keep itself safe. If ever there was a time for eminent domain, this is it. Not a highway, not a railway, not a mall. American safety.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on this one. I think Trump would be wise to come up with other options in those areas. It's gonna be tied up in the courts for years. He'll never get his Wall. Seizing these lands by force isn't the answer. But that's just my feeling anyway.

Well you're essentially taking the position that it is unconstitutional under any circumstances if national security doesn't qualify.
Property is taken everyday in this country for much less. Such as the sidewalk that is between your yard & the street or the lane expansion of a highway. If this scenario doesn't qualify in your mind what scenario would?

Attempting to seize these lands by force isn't gonna help Trump get his Wall. Some will fight it with all their might. It'll be in the courts for many years. If he goes this route, he won't see a Wall.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Find one Texas rancher on the Mexican border who voted DEM.
These ranchers have already made deals with the Gov. to lease the land.
They are getting a lot more in lease fees than they get from grazing a few head of cattle on the narrow strips of land involved.
Everyone is happy with the deals except the mexican cartels and the DEM party who are watching tens of thousands of illegals, who they assumed are one day going to vote DEM now being kept out of the US.
Maybe the DEMs should be going back to the negro 'well' again.

Did they have a choice? So no, 'Everyone' is definitely not happy. Many don't want to give up their lands for the Wall. They're shocked and angry that it's gonna be done by force.

Some probably won't have to move very far. A lot of that area is small-ish houses on a lot of land.

There's nothing wrong with imminent domain in this situation. Sure there will be a holdout here and there. They'll get money and move and that will be that.

Wow, so disturbing. I can't support seizing these Citizens' lands for this Wall. And i think Trump's gonna have a big fight on his hands. Texans don't just roll over to Government.

/----- the only fight he'll have is with the Mexicans looking for work to build the wall.

 

[Dschrute3]

Find one Texas rancher on the Mexican border who voted DEM.
These ranchers have already made deals with the Gov. to lease the land.
They are getting a lot more in lease fees than they get from grazing a few head of cattle on the narrow strips of land involved.
Everyone is happy with the deals except the mexican cartels and the DEM party who are watching tens of thousands of illegals, who they assumed are one day going to vote DEM now being kept out of the US.
Maybe the DEMs should be going back to the negro 'well' again.

Did they have a choice? So no, 'Everyone' is definitely not happy. Many don't want to give up their lands for the Wall. They're shocked and angry that it's gonna be done by force.

Some probably won't have to move very far. A lot of that area is small-ish houses on a lot of land.

There's nothing wrong with imminent domain in this situation. Sure there will be a holdout here and there. They'll get money and move and that will be that.

For the safety and security of the country, that's pretty much the ONLY time it's prescribed.

Dems don't get it. They never will.

I'm not a Democrat.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

That quote has absolutely nothing to do with a border wall. You're taking a great quote and twisting it to suit your opinion.

I betchya Benjamin Franklin wouldn't have stood for the Government trying to seize his lands. You can bet he would have fought it till the bitter end.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You can't inject "feelings" into the equation when our national security is the topic

Nah, i think feelings are a part of it. What if it was your property?

Of course they're involved on the land owners part but that has nothing to do with the rights of the country to keep itself safe. If ever there was a time for eminent domain, this is it. Not a highway, not a railway, not a mall. American safety.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on this one. I think Trump would be wise to come up with other options in those areas. It's gonna be tied up in the courts for years. He'll never get his Wall. Seizing these lands by force isn't the answer. But that's just my feeling anyway.

Well you're essentially taking the position that it is unconstitutional under any circumstances if national security doesn't qualify.
Property is taken everyday in this country for much less. Such as the sidewalk that is between your yard & the street or the lane expansion of a highway. If this scenario doesn't qualify in your mind what scenario would?

Attempting to seize these lands by force isn't gonna help Trump get his Wall. Some will fight it with all their might. It'll be in the courts for many years. If he goes this route, he won't see a Wall.

Redirect Notice

 

[Dschrute3]

Looks like Trump is planning to seize Citizens' lands to get the Wall built. It's mainly gonna happen in Texas. But are Texans gonna just sit back and allow the Government to take their lands? I wouldn't bet on it. I'm a Trump supporter and fully support revamping and improving our Immigration System. Because i do feel the System is in ruins. It is time to move towards ending Illegal Immigration all-together.

But that being said, i can't support Eminent Domain. I can't support forcing Citizens to give up their lands for the Wall. There has to be other solutions for those areas. And honestly, I actually find Trump's beliefs on Eminent Domain to be pretty disturbing.

What are your thoughts?

/---- Texans will welcome the wall to stop the hordes of undocumented democrats pouring over the border.

Yes, but if it's done by force, what did you really gain? You'd have traded your freedom & liberty for a little security. It's like making a deal with the Devil.

 

[Dschrute3]

and you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground ..


In 1993, Donald Trump bought several lots around his Atlantic City casino and hotel, intending to build a parking lot designed for limousines.[3] Coking, who had lived in her house at that time for 32 years, refused to sell. As a result, the city condemned her house, using the power of eminent domain. She was offered $251,000,[4] which was about one quarter of what she was offered by Guccione 10 years earlier.

With the assistance of the Institute for Justice, Coking fought the local authorities and eventually prevailed.[5] Superior Court Judge Richard Williams ruled that because there were "no limits" on what Trump could do with the property, the plan to take Coking's property did not meet the test of law. But Williams' ruling did not reject the practice of using eminent domain to take private property from one individual and transferring it to another, which would eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelo v. City of New London.

Two other properties that prevailed against eminent domain eventually did sell: Sabatini's restaurant received $2.1 million and a pawnshop sold for $1.6 million. Their lots became part of a large lawn flanking a taxi stand for Trump's casino.[1][6] Coking remained in her house until 2010, when she moved to a retirement home in the San Francisco Bay Area near her daughter and grandchildren.


an old woman tied him up in court for 11 years,and never gave up her home .. wait until Texas Ranchers get him by the nutsack,

Where are all these pissed ranchers you keep babbling about? Post your source.

Do you watch Fox News? They just did a report on the issue. Some are gonna fight the Government on this. It's gonna be in the courts for years. If Trump goes this route, he'll never see a Wall.

As I said earlier the solution is simple.
You build the wall until you hit the holdouts property thus funneling all illegal traffic onto his property.
We'll see how long he holds out.

That's Un-American Bullshite.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

You didnt like my other option of giving them a choice.
They can live on the south side of the wall or the north side,their choice.

You're proposing punishing fellow Americans for simply not wanting their lands confiscated by Government. It's very Un-American.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where are all these pissed ranchers you keep babbling about? Post your source.

Do you watch Fox News? They just did a report on the issue. Some are gonna fight the Government on this. It's gonna be in the courts for years. If Trump goes this route, he'll never see a Wall.

As I said earlier the solution is simple.
You build the wall until you hit the holdouts property thus funneling all illegal traffic onto his property.
We'll see how long he holds out.

That's Un-American Bullshite.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

You didnt like my other option of giving them a choice.
They can live on the south side of the wall or the north side,their choice.

You're proposing punishing fellow Americans for simply not wanting their lands confiscated by Government. It's very Un-American.

I dont like it anymore than you do but sometimes you gotta make sacrifices for your country.

 

[Dschrute3]

Find one Texas rancher on the Mexican border who voted DEM.
These ranchers have already made deals with the Gov. to lease the land.
They are getting a lot more in lease fees than they get from grazing a few head of cattle on the narrow strips of land involved.
Everyone is happy with the deals except the mexican cartels and the DEM party who are watching tens of thousands of illegals, who they assumed are one day going to vote DEM now being kept out of the US.
Maybe the DEMs should be going back to the negro 'well' again.

Did they have a choice? So no, 'Everyone' is definitely not happy. Many don't want to give up their lands for the Wall. They're shocked and angry that it's gonna be done by force.

Some probably won't have to move very far. A lot of that area is small-ish houses on a lot of land.

There's nothing wrong with imminent domain in this situation. Sure there will be a holdout here and there. They'll get money and move and that will be that.

Wow, so disturbing. I can't support seizing these Citizens' lands for this Wall. And i think Trump's gonna have a big fight on his hands. Texans don't just roll over to Government.

/----- the only fight he'll have is with the Mexicans looking for work to build the wall.

Wishful thinking. If Trump goes this route, he'll never see a Wall. Texans especially, don't roll over to Government. They will defend their lands. This will be in the courts for years. Trump will be long gone, and at best he'll have achieved half a Wall. I advise he consider other options in these areas.

 

[bendog]

[
.[/QUOTE]

You're proposing punishing fellow Americans for simply not wanting their lands confiscated by Government. It's very Un-American.[/QUOTE]

Few people like the taking. Trump loves it btw if it profits him, but that's another story. The real problem is that a taking is not that easy. And ultimately a landowner has right to a trail over the amount of compensation and the actual necessity of the taking, and the land owner has a right to appeal. That involves YEARS.

 

[Dschrute3]

Do you watch Fox News? They just did a report on the issue. Some are gonna fight the Government on this. It's gonna be in the courts for years. If Trump goes this route, he'll never see a Wall.

As I said earlier the solution is simple.
You build the wall until you hit the holdouts property thus funneling all illegal traffic onto his property.
We'll see how long he holds out.

That's Un-American Bullshite.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

You didnt like my other option of giving them a choice.
They can live on the south side of the wall or the north side,their choice.

You're proposing punishing fellow Americans for simply not wanting their lands confiscated by Government. It's very Un-American.

I dont like it anymore than you do but sometimes you gotta make sacrifices for your country.

If you really don't like it, come up with other options. I can't support trading freedom & liberty for some security. Our Founding Fathers would not approve of this.

 

[mudwhistle]

Just build the wall on the other side of those complaining.

Trump's Wall may be crumbling before it's even begun being built. Texans don't just roll over to Government. They will fight.

As a Texan who's lived near the border,I can tell you with complete confidence that the vast majority want the wall or some kind of protection against the invaders.
They cut their fences releasing cattle,break into their houses and leave garbage everywhere.

I want better border security too. But is Government seizing Citizens' lands really the answer? I can't support that.

Bullshit story.
Obama seized a shitload of land....so did Clinton and claimed it was national park property

This is just a fake news story.

Did you approve of that? I didn't.

If you've ever purchased land or property any easements or leans are revealed during a title search. You would know it at closing.

 

[Dschrute3]

[
.

You're proposing punishing fellow Americans for simply not wanting their lands confiscated by Government. It's very Un-American.[/QUOTE]

Few people like the taking. Trump loves it btw if it profits him, but that's another story. The real problem is that a taking is not that easy. And ultimately a landowner has right to a trail over the amount of compensation and the actual necessity of the taking, and the land owner has a right to appeal. That involves YEARS.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, this will be in the courts for years. Trump won't ever see his Wall. He's approaching this all wrong.

 

[Dschrute3]

Trump's Wall may be crumbling before it's even begun being built. Texans don't just roll over to Government. They will fight.

As a Texan who's lived near the border,I can tell you with complete confidence that the vast majority want the wall or some kind of protection against the invaders.
They cut their fences releasing cattle,break into their houses and leave garbage everywhere.

I want better border security too. But is Government seizing Citizens' lands really the answer? I can't support that.

Bullshit story.
Obama seized a shitload of land....so did Clinton and claimed it was national park property

This is just a fake news story.

Did you approve of that? I didn't.

If you've ever purchased land or property any easements or leans are revealed during a title search. You would know it at closing.

So did you support what Obama and Clinton did? I didn't.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Find one Texas rancher on the Mexican border who voted DEM.
These ranchers have already made deals with the Gov. to lease the land.
They are getting a lot more in lease fees than they get from grazing a few head of cattle on the narrow strips of land involved.
Everyone is happy with the deals except the mexican cartels and the DEM party who are watching tens of thousands of illegals, who they assumed are one day going to vote DEM now being kept out of the US.
Maybe the DEMs should be going back to the negro 'well' again.

Did they have a choice? So no, 'Everyone' is definitely not happy. Many don't want to give up their lands for the Wall. They're shocked and angry that it's gonna be done by force.

Some probably won't have to move very far. A lot of that area is small-ish houses on a lot of land.

There's nothing wrong with imminent domain in this situation. Sure there will be a holdout here and there. They'll get money and move and that will be that.

Wow, so disturbing. I can't support seizing these Citizens' lands for this Wall. And i think Trump's gonna have a big fight on his hands. Texans don't just roll over to Government.

/----- the only fight he'll have is with the Mexicans looking for work to build the wall.

Wishful thinking. If Trump goes this route, he'll never see a Wall. Texans especially, don't roll over to Government. They will defend their lands. This will be in the courts for years. Trump will be long gone, and at best he'll have achieved half a Wall. I advise he consider other options in these areas.

/---- what you meant to say: However, many Texas Democrats were not in favor of the president’s executive order. - The Statesman.

 

[bendog]

As a Texan who's lived near the border,I can tell you with complete confidence that the vast majority want the wall or some kind of protection against the invaders.
They cut their fences releasing cattle,break into their houses and leave garbage everywhere.

I want better border security too. But is Government seizing Citizens' lands really the answer? I can't support that.

Bullshit story.
Obama seized a shitload of land....so did Clinton and claimed it was national park property

This is just a fake news story.

Did you approve of that? I didn't.

If you've ever purchased land or property any easements or leans are revealed during a title search. You would know it at closing.

So did you support what Obama and Clinton did? I didn't.

I don't think they are precisely the same things. Traditionally when the gummt creates a park or a monument, the people living there are not kicked out. Siome uses like mining or drilling are no longer allowed. But privately owned property is not taken. Instead PUBLIC lands are basically declared off limits, and the state loses the ability to control them.

There are many private holdings in Natl Parks
The Fight Over Private Homes in the National Parks

But basically I think Grandpa is right on this that most Americans think we need secure borders and eminent domain can be used for that. But 60% or so don't lke the wall, and there would have to be hundreds of eminent domain actions for the wall .... And even Trump somehow wins reelection ... it'll take more time than he's got.