Sign in to follow this  
Hypercapnic Tom

Trump vs Property Rights

Recommended Posts

Trump vs Property Rights

Quote

President Trump's recent threat to use "the military version of eminent domain" to seize property for his border wall highlights the ways in which building the wall would harm the property rights of Americans. Less widely recognized is the fact that the wall policy is just part of a larger pattern of administration policy initiatives and legal positions that threaten property rights on multiple fronts.

The article goes on to detail how Trump has been as bad for property owners as Obama was on a few eminent domain takings issues and is notably worse in two ways: this "military version" idea and restoring asset forfeiture abuses that had been curtailed by Obama.

(Sorry for the outburst of Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda once again.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Rand Paul has really influenced Trump for the good of libertarians, hasn't he? Man, he's so uncooperative when Trump has him bent over the golf cart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That Rand Paul has really influenced Trump for the good of libertarians, hasn't he? Man, he's so uncooperative when Trump has him bent over the golf cart.

Wish the neighbor on the other side would kick his ass.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Trump couldn't give a rat's ass about property rights if the property is not his.

FIFY

I think it's one of the ultimate ironies that the very people who are all enflamed about the dadgum gubbermint doing this or that, that it shouldn't, are all slobberingly eager to see a would-be dictator who clearly doesn't believe in -any- checks on gov't power.

Hypocrisy at it's sharpest.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Trump vs Property Rights

The article goes on to detail how Trump has been as bad for property owners as Obama was on a few eminent domain takings issues and is notably worse in two ways: this "military version" idea and restoring asset forfeiture abuses that had been curtailed by Obama.

(Sorry for the outburst of Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda once again.)

Actually, the article doesn't even mention Obama, even indirectly. That's just Dogballs imagination.

(Sorry for actually reading the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda but then someone had to.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:
 

Quote

 

Since Trump took office, the Supreme Court has heard two important takings cases, Murr v. Wisconsin and Knick v. Township of Scott. The administration supported the wrong position in both cases. In Murr, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief supporting a rule that will often allow government to deny compensation for takings merely because the owner of the property in question also owns another adjacent lot. While the brief was initially drafted late in the Obama administration, the Trump administration decided to proceed with it and defend it in oral argument before the Court, despite requests by conservative property rights advocates urging them to desist.

...

Some of the Trump administration's policies on these issues are similar to those of the Obama administration, which also had an awful record on property rights, including adopting positions so extreme that they led to multiple lopsided unanimous or near-unanimous defeats in Supreme Court takings cases. On asset forfeiture, however, Trump actually reversed an Obama policy that had strengthened protection for property owners. In any event, here, as elsewhere, Obama's poor record in this field is no excuse for Trump. The Republicans, after all, are supposed to be the party that supports property rights.

 

From the clueless:

6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Actually, the article doesn't even mention Obama, even indirectly.

I hope the bolding is helpful.

 

6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

(Sorry for actually reading the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda but then someone had to.)

Sorry you missed the four mentions of Obama and have no point to make beyond an easily disproven lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I think it's one of the ultimate ironies that the very people who are all enflamed about the dadgum gubbermint doing this or that, that it shouldn't, are all slobberingly eager to see a would-be dictator who clearly doesn't believe in -any- checks on gov't power.

But this thread is about eminent domain takings and asset forfeiture abuse, which are basically libertarian projects of little interest to anyone else, as Eva Dent in the threads on those topics on this forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

But this thread is about eminent domain takings and asset forfeiture abuse, which are basically libertarian projects of little interest to anyone else, as Eva Dent in the threads on those topics on this forum.

it's not the post, it's the poster dogballs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Actually, the article doesn't even mention Obama, even indirectly. That's just Dogballs imagination.

(Sorry for actually reading the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda but then someone had to.)

The article mentions his administration four times by name - here's three of them:

Some of the Trump administration's policies on these issues are similar to those of the Obama administration, which also had an awful record on property rights, including adopting positions so extreme that they led to multiple lopsided unanimous or near-unanimous defeats in Supreme Court takings cases. On asset forfeiture, however, Trump actually reversed an Obama policy that had strengthened protection for property owners. In any event, here, as elsewhere, Obama's poor record in this field is no excuse for Trump. The Republicans, after all, are supposed to be the party that supports property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

But this thread is about eminent domain takings and asset forfeiture abuse, which are basically libertarian projects of little interest to anyone else, as Eva Dent in the threads on those topics on this forum.

 

Considering that before he was President, Trump had a long history of ripping off other people, I don't think I'd bet against him taking citizens' property when it occurs to him.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The article mentions his administration four times by name - here's three of them:

Some of the Trump administration's policies on these issues are similar to those of the Obama administration, which also had an awful record on property rights, including adopting positions so extreme that they led to multiple lopsided unanimous or near-unanimous defeats in Supreme Court takings cases. On asset forfeiture, however, Trump actually reversed an Obama policy that had strengthened protection for property owners. In any event, here, as elsewhere, Obama's poor record in this field is no excuse for Trump. The Republicans, after all, are supposed to be the party that supports property rights.

I know what happened. I read it and advertently or inadvertently clicked on the first link. Because the link itself doesn’t look familiar and it’s first link does. My bad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I know what happened. I read it and advertently or inadvertently clicked on the first link. Because the link itself doesn’t look familiar and it’s first link does. My bad.

I know the rest of what happened:

16 hours ago, Olsonist said:

That's just Dogballs imagination. 

You falsely attributed your mistake to me.

 

7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Considering that before he was President, Trump had a long history of ripping off other people, I don't think I'd bet against him taking citizens' property when it occurs to him.

-DSK

Yeah, there was no way of predicting that result back in 2015. Almost. One could read the Kelo thread, but one probably wouldn't.

On 8/26/2015 at 3:02 AM, dogballs Tom said:

The Donald on Kelo vs New London

 

Quote
In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.

 


Amazing that the poster boy for crony capitalism is somehow seen as a person who won't use government to screw people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cmilliken said:

The article mentions his administration four times by name - here's three of them:

Some of the Trump administration's policies on these issues are similar to those of the Obama administration, which also had an awful record on property rights, including adopting positions so extreme that they led to multiple lopsided unanimous or near-unanimous defeats in Supreme Court takings cases. On asset forfeiture, however, Trump actually reversed an Obama policy that had strengthened protection for property owners. In any event, here, as elsewhere, Obama's poor record in this field is no excuse for Trump. The Republicans, after all, are supposed to be the party that supports property rights.

And the other one is already above as well, but as noted many times, to mindless partisans,

8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

it's not the post, it's the poster

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought about this the other day...if I were a land owner, i'd sure as hell sue the federal gumment all the way to the Supreme Court...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dacapo said:

i thought about this the other day...if I were a land owner, i'd sure as hell sue the federal gumment all the way to the Supreme Court...

You might want to know about the only people likely to help.

Umm... you don't have a problem with corporations exercising their long-established first amendment right to expre$$ themselves by filing lawsuits, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "military version" of eminent domain is the declaration of a National Emergency.

We have lots of them, the oldest one on that list has been ongoing since the 70's and many date to the 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 12:17 PM, Olsonist said:

Actually, the article doesn't even mention Obama, even indirectly. That's just Dogballs imagination.

(Sorry for actually reading the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda but then someone had to.)

Hey, at least badlatitude "liked" this bullshit, so there's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

A National Emergency is basically dictatorial powers

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-01-08/what-is-a-national-emergency-and-when-can-a-president-legally-declare-one

Tom and our other Fakebertarians will be along shortly to beam about how resolute Shitstain is in addressing a clear and present danger.

Actually, I reminded everyone on Sunday that yet another emergency for no good reason makes Trump a danger to our rights. It's just that some people are a bit hard of reading and prone to lie about others instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Actually, I reminded everyone on Sunday that yet another emergency for no good reason makes Trump a danger to our rights. It's just that some people are a bit hard of reading and prone to lie about others instead.

Man, such butthurt from a lieing asshole that edits others posts.

Here, now I bumped your thread. Hopefully nobody will play with you today and you can turn the butthurt up to 12 tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

now I bumped your thread.

Thanks for that.

 

2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Hopefully nobody will play with you today

One can hope, but liars like Olsonist will spread false gossip about me pretty much every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 8:20 AM, Barnacle Balls said:

oh... and bumpstocks.

It's not all that different from the "military version" of eminent domain.

On 12/30/2018 at 6:45 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Obama looked at the issue and decided he could do nothing without unduly usurping power that rightfully belongs to Congress.

Trump looked at the same issue and decided to usurp away and quickly passed more gun control than Obama managed in his two terms.

Obama was clearly preferable on that issue.

Trump is clearly the more power hungry gun grabber when it suits him, but TeamR doesn't seem to say a thing about it.

Similarly, Obama never suggested using emergency powers to seize private property. If he had, TeamR would have had a cow.

Trump suggests it and our TeamR players around here have no comment.

I asked over in the wall thread:

On 1/8/2019 at 7:46 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Hey Dog,

Any thoughts on using the "military version" of eminent domain to take property for the wall?


Dog's pretty thorough about quoting each and every post directed at him and at least saying "bullshit" or something.

No answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 9:50 AM, SailBlueH2O said:

interstate.jpg

Does this post have a point?

Was the military version of eminent domain used for those roads?

And what do you think about the normal version?

Do you agree with Trump and the liberal majority about the Kelo case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
15 hours ago, Olsonist said:

A National Emergency is basically dictatorial powers

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-01-08/what-is-a-national-emergency-and-when-can-a-president-legally-declare-one

Tom and our other Fakebertarians will be along shortly to beam about how resolute Shitstain is in addressing a clear and present danger. Jeff will remind us that at least we don't have Hillary who the Democrats shouldn't have nominated before running off to a gun thread. Guy will be concerned but cautiously optimistic.

I'll be concerned when/if it looks like it will happen. 


You mean when/if it's too late?

It might be too late by then.

If the idea is worthy of concern, it's worthy of concern in time to prevent it from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
15 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Tom and our other Fakebertarians will be along shortly to beam about how resolute Shitstain is in addressing a clear and present danger. Jeff will remind us that at least we don't have Hillary who the Democrats shouldn't have nominated before running off to a gun thread. Guy will be concerned but cautiously optimistic.

OK, that's funny. :lol:


Why did you strike through my name in Olsonist's lie?

The "other Fakebertarians" are/is milliken as far as I can tell and it looks like Olsonist is lying about him too, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:


You mean when/if it's too late?

It might be too late by then.

If the idea is worthy of concern, it's worthy of concern in time to prevent it from happening.

The idea is worthy of concern indeed.  Are you familiar w/the difference between a vulnerability, a risk, and a threat?   Risk refers to the potential for loss or damage when a threat exploits a vulnerability.  The idea that a President might inappropriately declare an emergency is a vulnerability.  When the factors by which that vulnerability might be realized are added to the equation, that result is the threat.   The risk is the damage that might be inflicted should such an action occur.  
 

In this case?  i agree with ya Tom,  the vulnerability is worthy of concern.  And in the risk assessment process, you decide upon mitigation of the vulnerability based upon an analysis of its likelihood to occur, and the impacts should the risk be realized. 

My gut tells me that the threat, the possibility that Trump will declare a state of emergency, is low.  Why?  As much as everyone here hates everything R ( except Muller), I still think that there are lines that they won't allow Trump to cross, and this is one.  Thus, I don't see a need for much urgency in implementing a mitigation. 

 If/When we see indications to the contrary - then it's indeed time to react.  'Til then?  I think It's an interesting discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The idea that a President might inappropriately declare an emergency is a vulnerability.  When the factors by which that vulnerability might be realized are added to the equation, that result is the threat.

One factor to consider is who objects when the idea is floated, when, and how vociferously.

An answer: TeamR types do it when asked, not before, and not very. Which factors into:

3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

My gut tells me that the threat, the possibility that Trump will declare a state of emergency, is low.  Why?  As much as everyone here hates everything R ( except Muller), I still think that there are lines that they won't allow Trump to cross, and this is one. 

My gut would tell me that with a bit more authority if I saw more objections and sooner from TeamR sources. Instead, I went to Free Republic to see how the faithful are reacting. "Whatever it takes" was the overwhelming sentiment. Gut check time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 12:17 PM, Olsonist said:

Actually, the article doesn't even mention Obama, even indirectly. That's just Dogballs imagination.

(Sorry for actually reading the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda but then someone had to.)

Thanks for doing the legwork.  My initial reaction was "why are we talking about Obama?  It has nothing to do with what's going on...."  I thought it was probably just one more of those what-about-isms being thrown in to try and make Trump's actions look acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grrr... said:
On 1/6/2019 at 12:17 PM, Olsonist said:

Actually, the article doesn't even mention Obama, even indirectly. That's just Dogballs imagination.

(Sorry for actually reading the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda but then someone had to.)

Thanks for doing the legwork. 

He's been proven wrong twice. But thanks for posting without reading! It's funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

He's been proven wrong twice. But thanks for posting without reading! It's funny!

Hrmm..  Confirmation bias strikes.  You're right, Obama is mentioned a number of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

My initial reaction was "why are we talking about Obama?  It has nothing to do with what's going on...." 

For other non-readers: the answer is because it irritates TeamR types to show how Trump is as bad as Obama or worse on several property rights issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The idea is worthy of concern indeed.  Are you familiar w/the difference between a vulnerability, a risk, and a threat?   Risk refers to the potential for loss or damage when a threat exploits a vulnerability.  The idea that a President might inappropriately declare an emergency is a vulnerability.  When the factors by which that vulnerability might be realized are added to the equation, that result is the threat.   The risk is the damage that might be inflicted should such an action occur.  
 

In this case?  i agree with ya Tom,  the vulnerability is worthy of concern.  And in the risk assessment process, you decide upon mitigation of the vulnerability based upon an analysis of its likelihood to occur, and the impacts should the risk be realized. 

My gut tells me that the threat, the possibility that Trump will declare a state of emergency, is low.  Why?  As much as everyone here hates everything R ( except Muller), I still think that there are lines that they won't allow Trump to cross, and this is one.  Thus, I don't see a need for much urgency in implementing a mitigation. 

 If/When we see indications to the contrary - then it's indeed time to react.  'Til then?  I think It's an interesting discussion. 

I wish I shared your optimism. With the R's coming out of their latest meetings suddenly volubly concerned about the "crisis" that didn't concern them at all three weeks ago, you know they are following the leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no need for a declaration of emergency to take property for the "wall" (and it's required roads), that path is already included in the IIRIRA

and it has a 100% survival rate in federal courts (the supreme's declined to address it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The idea is worthy of concern indeed.  Are you familiar w/the difference between a vulnerability, a risk, and a threat?   Risk refers to the potential for loss or damage when a threat exploits a vulnerability.  The idea that a President might inappropriately declare an emergency is a vulnerability.  When the factors by which that vulnerability might be realized are added to the equation, that result is the threat.   The risk is the damage that might be inflicted should such an action occur.  
 

In this case?  i agree with ya Tom,  the vulnerability is worthy of concern.  And in the risk assessment process, you decide upon mitigation of the vulnerability based upon an analysis of its likelihood to occur, and the impacts should the risk be realized. 

My gut tells me that the threat, the possibility that Trump will declare a state of emergency, is low.  Why?  As much as everyone here hates everything R ( except Muller), I still think that there are lines that they won't allow Trump to cross, and this is one.  Thus, I don't see a need for much urgency in implementing a mitigation. 

 If/When we see indications to the contrary - then it's indeed time to react.  'Til then?  I think It's an interesting discussion. 

I have seen absolutely 0 evidence of this. As far as I can see, if Trump ordered all Democratic Congressmen killed and eaten, the Rs would bitch and moan and scream about how they will never be cannibals, Trump went too far, etc. etc. and then 100% of them would show up with silverware and barbecue sauce and eat until they were stuffed.

If the Rs had any sort of decency or limits we would have been bitching about President Pence for months at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

He's been proven wrong twice. But thanks for posting without reading! It's funny!

Much like you dancing bitch. Dance for us dogballs ! Dance bitch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Thanks for doing the legwork.  My initial reaction was "why are we talking about Obama?  It has nothing to do with what's going on...."  I thought it was probably just one more of those what-about-isms being thrown in to try and make Trump's actions look acceptable.

No, I read the wrong link. For some reason, I fat finger clicked on the first link in Tom's cite and thought that was the article. Similar, not same. My bad on that. But still, Dogballs is whatabouting to excuse his boy Shitstain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hermetic said:

no need for a declaration of emergency to take property for the "wall" (and it's required roads), that path is already included in the IIRIRA

and it has a 100% survival rate in federal courts (the supreme's declined to address it)

The thing about that is the part of that law that says:
 

Quote

 

(ii) Savings provision.
-
Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to
-
(I)  create  or  negate  any  right  of  action  for  a  State,  local  government,  or
other person or entity affected by this subsection; or

(II) affect the eminent domain laws of the United States or of any State.

 

Taking that property would seem to affect those laws, whether by the "military version" or the regular one. Which, if either, do you prefer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 6:33 AM, dacapo said:

i thought about this the other day...if I were a land owner, i'd sure as hell sue the federal gumment all the way to the Supreme Court...

Writing as a lawyer, your time and money is better spent on sailing.  I hate to take money for things that won't help.  Can't sue city hall and all that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

For other non-readers: the answer is because it irritates TeamR types to show how Trump is as bad as Obama or worse on several property rights issues.

 

10 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

But yes, Dogballs is whatabouting to excuse Shitstain.

The opposite of the truth is what you'll find if you look in Olsonist posts to learn what I have said. As Grrr learned, a partisan TeamD hack isn't the best source on what a libertarian says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

what a libertarian says

If you want to be effective, you need to persuade people.  The libertarian ideology is a dead end which most people understand.  I know I can survive and succeed.  I'd like to have my neighbors also succeeding.  That's why we coach, volunteer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hasher said:

If you want to be effective, you need to persuade people.  The libertarian ideology is a dead end which most people understand.  I know I can survive and succeed.  I'd like to have my neighbors also succeeding.  That's why we coach, volunteer...

tsk tsk. libertarians - or in this case a fauxbertarian - aren't interested in anything close to convincing people. start doing that and they might think of governance. the cold light of that reality makes it much more difficult to be the fat incels on the sidelines saying "you did it wrong" to everyone about everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:
On 1/7/2019 at 6:33 AM, dacapo said:

i thought about this the other day...if I were a land owner, i'd sure as hell sue the federal gumment all the way to the Supreme Court...

Writing as a lawyer, your time and money is better spent on sailing.  I hate to take money for things that won't help.  Can't sue city hall and all that...

You can sue the New London Development Corp and all that. Good chance you'll lose, but you can.

Writing as a lawyer, what did you think when those silly libertarians tried it in the Kelo case? Do you agree with the majority conclusion in that case?

Would you agree with me that taking private property for border facilities implicates eminent domain?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hasher said:
6 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

As Grrr learned, a partisan TeamD hack isn't the best source on what a libertarian says.

If you want to be effective, you need to persuade people.  The libertarian ideology is a dead end which most people understand. 

It only sort of was for Suzette Kelo and we're yet to see whether it is for Tyson Timbs. I was a libertarian back when a VERY low percentage of the population thought legalizing cannabis was a good idea. You know, the libertarian percentage. Now a majority agree.

And lots of people don't want to talk about the great victory over those silly libertarians in the Kelo case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who thinks its just a matter of fact process in taking Texas landowners land should first visualize hitting a hornets nest.  There are several things I agree with Tom on, this is one of them. Drugs laws and property seizures being a couple more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

Anybody who thinks its just a matter of fact process in taking Texas landowners land should first visualize hitting a hornets nest.  There are several things I agree with Tom on, this is one of them. Drugs laws and property seizures being a couple more.

If the Repugnicans ram this through, do you think anyone in the state will flip blue? Or will they take it in the ass like the farmers are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

My gut tells me that the threat, the possibility that Trump will declare a state of emergency, is low.

Mine tells me he's that nuts.

37 minutes ago, Mid said:
Quote

Asked as he left the White House whether he would declare a national emergency, the President told reporters: “If this doesn’t work out, probably I will do it, I would almost say definitely.”

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/trump-says-hell-almost-definitely-declare-national-emergency-as-he-heads-to-border/news-story/f5f094cbf58f680fbfaee373ece33da0

And I'm not sure how Mid got in my gut. Gonna puke now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

If the Repugnicans ram this through, do you think anyone in the state will flip blue? Or will they take it in the ass like the farmers are?

Or maybe look for another alternative if both of those are repugnant for some reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or maybe look for another alternative if both of those are repugnant for some reasons.

Armed insurrection? Threaten to dam the Rio Grande?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Armed insurrection? Threaten to dam the Rio Grande?

Vote differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:


Why did you strike through my name in Olsonist's lie? 

The "other Fakebertarians" are/is milliken as far as I can tell and it looks like Olsonist is lying about him too, doesn't it?

Wow, a question about me that Bent Sailor is able to resist. I didn't think it possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Vote differently?

Well, I usually waste my vote here on the Green Party. I did vote for Joe Trudeau, but I really had some hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Well, I usually waste my vote here on the Green Party. I did vote for Joe Trudeau, but I really had some hope.

I don't think that's a waste. I have a little fun with Hillary's yuge 3 million vote margin now and then by pointing out that it's really not that close to Gary Johnson's yuge 4.5 million vote total. Or, if you're a lying Jiblet, about 1.5 million vote total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham calls for Trump to use emergency powers to fund border wall

Whaddya know? Lindsey supports a power grab. Again.

Quote

 

South Dakota Sen. John Thune told CNN, "Frankly, I'm not crazy about going down that path."
"Inevitably, I suspect it probably gets challenged in court," said Thune, a member of Republican leadership.
Graham seemed to acknowledge the uncertainty around the move in his statement, saying, "I hope it works."

 

Wow. Strong words from Thune there. It's almost like he sees a reason it should lose and won't say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs said Thursday that President Trump should use his national emergency powers to "simply sweep aside the recalcitrant left in this country” as the partial government moves closer to Day 21. 


And now Navig8tor has somehow found his way into my gut.

 

19 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

My gut tells me that the threat, the possibility that Trump will declare a state of emergency, is low.  Why?  As much as everyone here hates everything R ( except Muller), I still think that there are lines that they won't allow Trump to cross, and this is one.  Thus, I don't see a need for much urgency in implementing a mitigation. 

By "they" I hope you didn't mean establishment TeamR figures like Lindsey and Lou. Because if so, that comment about "too late" above might have already come into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh. The same Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleader who wrote the topic article is at it again.
 

Quote

 

It is difficult to predict the outcome of a legal battle over emergency powers. Courts often give Presidents undue deference on national security and immigration issues. But, hopefully, judges will see the importance of strictly enforcing constraints on the exercise of dangerous emergency powers.

Even if Trump can use an emergency declaration to secure funding, that does not mean he can seize property by eminent domain. Supreme Court precedent states that the use of eminent domain must be "expressly authorized" by law. No emergency laws "expressly" permit the use of eminent domain for border walls not otherwise authorized by Congress....

If Trump succeeds in using emergency powers to build the wall and seize private property, it would set a dangerous precedent for future Presidents. They too could declare a "national emergency," and then spend funds to take private property, even without clear congressional authorization.

Conservatives who cheer Trump now may regret it if the next Democratic president uses the same powers to appropriate funds and take property for liberal policies. No president of either party can be trusted with such dangerous unilateral authority over public funds and Americans' property rights.

 

Sorry for another outburst of unqualified support for Trump and TeamR, but that's all I ever do after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney went to Washington to boldly oppose Trump.
 

Quote

 

What about that new guy, handsome fella from Utah, who made waves in Washington last week by vowing to "speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions"?

Reported the Deseret News after Trump's address: "Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was silent Tuesday night."

Until Senate Republicans rediscover their tongues, let alone spines, their claim to "constitutional conservatism" should be greeted with hoots of laughter.

 

I mean, if Trump does anything wrong, he'll call it out. Hypothetically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 12:33 PM, hermetic said:

no need for a declaration of emergency to take property for the "wall" (and it's required roads), that path is already included in the IIRIRA

and it has a 100% survival rate in federal courts (the supreme's declined to address it)

Is that a good test of right and wrong?

I mean, this lady got further, all the way to the Supreme Court.

On 1/14/2018 at 6:42 PM, dogballs Tom said:

there's a beautiful, vacant tract where a little pink house once stood.

539w.jpg


Using eminent domain (the civilian kind) for border facilities is OK in principle but:

On 12/15/2017 at 11:11 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Taking land at the border for border security seems as legit a use of eminent domain as can be, but when that rubber actually meets the road, Justice Thomas' warning about disproportionate effects on the poor come into play again:

 

Quote

Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests.


And that is what has happened.

Quote

the record of previous condemnations for border barriers shows that the Department of Homeland Security has a notorious history of violating procedural rights and shortchanging property owners on the compensation they are due under the Constitution. The same sorts of abuses are likely to recur on a larger scale if Trump gets the money to build his much more extensive wall.

I know some don't click links and read, so here are the findings:

 

Quote

 

A just-published study conducted by ProPublica and the Texas Tribune analyzed over 400 condemnations undertaken as a result of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of a much smaller barrier than Trump's proposed wall. Here is their summary of their findings:

An investigation by ProPublica and the Texas Tribune shows that [the Department of] Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners, and ultimately abused the government's extraordinary power to take land from private citizens.

The major findings:

  • Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values.
  • Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests.
  • The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government's mistakes.
  • The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process.
  • On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners.
  • Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value.

 

 
I used to tow gliders at Kendall Gliderport on Sundays. We had a grass runway about 5,000 feet long and a concrete hangar with reinforced concrete roof. And by "we" I mean my boss, or I did mean that at the time.
Back when she owned it, it was worth over a million dollars. And then one day, the government decided it would be a nice addition to the Everglades National Park. And the government was right, it would.
The thing is, the NEXT day is when they did the market valuation of the property. The market has very little interest in a property that's going to be taken, so the value was WAAAAY less than a million.
Is that just compensation? Last I heard, my old boss was still fighting over that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Koch-$pon$ored Propaganda

Lindsey Graham was a vocal opponent of (Obama's) Executive power grabs.

Quote

 

Graham, who has since graduated to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was right then. He's a disgrace now.

President Donald Trump, according to the latest reporting, is "laying the groundwork for a declaration of national emergency to build [a] border wall," telling his phone buddy Sean Hannity last night: "Now if we don't make a deal with Congress, most likely I will do that....I would actually say I would. I can't imagine any reason why not because I'm allowed to do it. The law is 100 percent on my side."

Needless to say, people with more familiarity with law don't share the president's view. "The validity of this claim is dubious at best," Ilya Somin explains at The Volokh Conspiracy. "It's a terrible idea," editorializes National Review. "Even if it's legal—which is unclear, at best—it would represent another unwelcome step in America's long march toward unilateral government by the executive." Opines NR's David French: "If you look at the plain language and clear intent of the relevant statutes, they do not permit Trump to defy Congress and build his wall. He knows it. Congress knows it. His own lawyers know it."

The congressional Republican most vocally opposed to the national-emergency scheme is, unsurprisingly, the self-described libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.). "I think it would be a huge mistake," Amash told Michigan Advance yesterday, "and it would be a massive executive overreach....There's no national emergency. Obviously, there are problems at the border, but to declare a national emergency—and assume all sorts of powers—would be way beyond what I think is authorized."

But Amash's is a lonely view even within his own Freedom Caucus bloc of ostensible constitutionalists. "I would prefer the legislative option," Freedom Caucus Rep. Scott Perry (R–Pa.) tells The Huffington Post. "

But if he keeps on trying and trying and trying, and the other side is so intractable that they refuse to discuss it, what other option do you have?"

 

I wonder if Putin somehow makes those evil Koch'$ prai$e Trump like that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubio Likes Waffles
 

Quote

 

GOP Senator Marco Rubio recently warned that the use of emergency powers to build the wall could set a precedent for a Democratic president to use it to deal with climate change:

A national emergency declaration by President Donald Trump over border security could wind up hurting Republicans, GOP Sen. Marco Rubio told CNBC on Wednesday.

The Florida Republican contended that Trump was elected on the promise of building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and the president has to "keep that promise." But "we have to be careful about endorsing broad uses of executive power," he added. "I'm not prepared to endorse that right now."

Such a declaration would set a precedent, Rubio said. "If today, the national emergency is border security ... tomorrow the national emergency might be climate change."

Unlike French, Klein, and the National Review, Rubio has not actually definitively come out against using emergency powers to try to build the wall. He only said he's "not prepared to endorse that right now" (emphasis added). But if he and other congressional Republicans are genuinely worried about setting a dangerous precedent, they could (along with Democrats) pass legislation forbidding such shenanigans, and place tight restrictions on the president's power to reallocate funds and condemn property without specific congressional authorization. In my view, using emergency powers to build the wall is barred even under current law. But the relevant statutes are murky enough that misguided judicial deference to executive power might allow Trump to prevail - and thereby set a dangerous precedent for the future.

 

I think his real position is that emergency powers are dangerous in the hands of the President unless that President is Marco Rubio. He thinks that may happen some day and doesn't want to tie his own hands.

Here's a little logic for him: if no one else can be trusted with a power, no one else can be trusted with a power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 11:55 AM, kent_island_sailor said:

Trump couldn't give a rat's ass about property rights if the property is not his.

A common attitude.

After all, Suzette Kelo and Tyson Timbs and many others have had to turn to libertarians to protect their property rights because Duopoly types don't give a shit about asset forfeiture abuse nor eminent domain abuse, as long as it's not their property. Libertarians are only good for insulting right up until it's your property being looted by government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 12:40 PM, Olsonist said:
On 1/10/2019 at 11:54 AM, Grrr... said:

Thanks for doing the legwork.  My initial reaction was "why are we talking about Obama?  It has nothing to do with what's going on...."  I thought it was probably just one more of those what-about-isms being thrown in to try and make Trump's actions look acceptable.

No, I read the wrong link. For some reason, I fat finger clicked on the first link in Tom's cite and thought that was the article. Similar, not same. My bad on that. But still, Dogballs is whatabouting to excuse his boy Shitstain.

Hey Grrr,

What do you think about the veracity of the bolded bit above?

Can he fool you twice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Rubio: The Florida Republican contended that Trump was elected on the promise of building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and the president has to "keep that promise."

He was also elected to " Lock her up"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VhmSays said:
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Rubio: The Florida Republican contended that Trump was elected on the promise of building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and the president has to "keep that promise."

He was also elected to " Lock her up"

And the big campaign slogan for the 2018 elections? "Promises made, promises kept"

Why are approx 30% of Americans stupid enough to fall for this bullshit

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

And the big campaign slogan for the 2018 elections? "Promises made, promises kept"

Why are approx 30% of Americans stupid enough to fall for this bullshit

-DSK

30% of the voting public... mostly uneducated, white and over 65, a dying breed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

A common attitude.

After all, Suzette Kelo and Tyson Timbs and many others have had to turn to libertarians to protect their property rights because Duopoly types don't give a shit about asset forfeiture abuse nor eminent domain abuse, as long as it's not their property. Libertarians are only good for insulting right up until it's your property being looted by government.

I'll give you that for sure - Many Libertarians have been quite consistent and active on this issue for ages. The other side is always using "fear of" or "war on" bullshit. Anyone remember fun times when the "war on drugs" meant your boat or airplane could be destroyed or confiscated for almost any reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I'll give you that for sure - Many Libertarians have been quite consistent and active on this issue for ages. The other side is always using "fear of" or "war on" bullshit. Anyone remember fun times when the "war on drugs" meant your boat or airplane could be destroyed or confiscated for almost any reason?

That's more a question for another thread.

And mixing war powers and eminent domain is not a completely new thing, just an outrageous one in this case.

The usual eminent domain fights are about what's "just" compensation and the line there is always "we're saving the taxpayers money" when the situation is "we're screwing one property owner to benefit another."

Since the evil libertarians were defeated in the Kelo assault on the American Justice System, there are no major fights over whether any given boondoggle is a "public use" for fifth amendment purposes. They are.

There's a reason that developers like Trump and politicians like these schemes. Once you remove the economically disadvantaged (read mostly black) people from a neighborhood and develop it, tax revenues and returns to the businesses do indeed flow in. A public benefit! Whee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarians are always good for insulting. Especially when your property is being looted by the government. You look at them and say "man, that dogballs sure is fucking keeping the government tyranny away".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I'll give you that for sure - Many Libertarians have been quite consistent and active on this issue for ages. The other side is always using "fear of" or "war on" bullshit. Anyone remember fun times when the "war on drugs" meant your boat or airplane could be destroyed or confiscated for almost any reason?

The threat to boats was particularly rampant under Reagan's War on Drugs.  Coast Guard cutters hovering just outside popular marinas and boarding happy vacationer's boats was common here in the PNW.  It turned out that it was up to the local C.G. Commandant whether he/she was a true believer and was determined to go all in on arbitrary boardings or not.  Under Clinton the national policies were clarified and the local gung-ho types were backed of by a directive clarifying the rules of engagement.  I heard that it was Al Gore who made the phone call to have the local C.G. stop being so flagrant.

Now we've got TSA with 50 caliber dogballs mounted on their patrol boats herding us around.  But rarely boarding.  I have been told to "head into the beach" by megaphone as I've tried to maintain proper distance from a boomer heading out to sea.  Trying to explain/shout that I'm already in 15' of water and draw 11' so turning in shore is not a viable option has worked so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Left Shift said:

The threat to boats was particularly rampant under Reagan's War on Drugs.  Coast Guard cutters hovering just outside popular marinas and boarding happy vacationer's boats was common here in the PNW.  It turned out that it was up to the local C.G. Commandant whether he/she was a true believer and was determined to go all in on arbitrary boardings or not.  Under Clinton the national policies were clarified and the local gung-ho types were backed of by a directive clarifying the rules of engagement.  I heard that it was Al Gore who made the phone call to have the local C.G. stop being so flagrant.

OK, we can turn this into a branch of the asset forfeiture thread. It is a property rights issue in the topic article and one on which Trump is notably worse than Obama. (Had to get in a little whataboutism).

The big change around that time was CAFRA, a legislative reaction to the Reagan-era abuses. Threatening the drug war's cash cow isn't popular today with drug warriors but was more of a "torture then hanging" offense back then. A clear indication of liberaltarian/hippy/dopehead/commie world view.

Reform was only possible if a real drug warrior led it. That leadership was provided by Bob Barr. I'm not a big fan of the man, but will always be grateful that he stuck his neck out for property rights when other drug warriors would not.

Similar courage was required for Bill Clinton to sign it back then. Any concession, no matter how small, to the liberaltarian/hippy/dopehead/commies who wanted to ruin America by ending our sacred prohibition program was enough to get a TeamD politician the "soft on crime" label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned elsewhere

On 12/23/2018 at 6:58 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Walls work if patrolled and not if not.

In our vast SW desert, the patrols are a lot more important than physical barriers and we can now do a lot of it remotely without causing the environmental and land ownership problems of a long wall through the desert.

I think the need to keep people and drugs out is overblown and the effectiveness of any of the programs that attempt to do it is low.


And it looks like that is what TeamD is saying
 

Quote

 

In her brief televised response to Trump's Tuesday Oval Office address, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that "we can install new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming into our nation; we can hire the personnel we need to facilitate trade and immigration at the border; we can fund more innovation to detect unauthorized crossings."

This theme was picked up by Rep. Henry Cuellar (D–Texas) in an article for CNN titled "The answer to border security is technology, not wall."

 

This causes different problems.
 

Quote

 

...

Take Roberto Palacios, a rancher and attorney who owns a property near the Texas-Mexico border. He found a surveillance camera installed on a mesquite tree near his house in November 2017. When he removed the camera, both the Border Patrol and the state police demanded it back and threatened to charge Palacios with theft if he refused.

In February 2018, Palacios sued Texas state law enforcement and Customs and Border Protection—which oversees the Border Patrol—for criminal trespass and violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

Also suing the federal government over the placement of sensors and cameras on its land is the North American Butterfly Association, a nonprofit that operates the National Butterfly Center, a wildlife refuge for butterflies along the Texas-Mexico border. Border Patrol refuse to tell the center where the cameras and sensors they've planted are, so staff and visitors are potentially under federal surveillance anywhere they go in the park.

These are hardly the only folks to have surveillance devices placed on their land. In 2012 the State of Texas launched Operation Drawbridge, which has seen it place more than 5,000 cameras along the Mexican border. They feed images to state and federal officials in real time.

Nor are these the only technologies threatening privacy near the border. The use of drones and surveillance blimps has proliferated in the region, while folks passing through legal ports of entry have been subject to everything from facial recognition technology to having their fingerprints run through error-prone terror watchlists.

The "digital border fence" may be less unsightly and less expensive than Trump's wall, but it presents many of the same problems for privacy and property rights. Democrats who call for more of this are showing that they care more about opposing the symbolism of a border wall than actually guarding against its negative effects.

 

Some of those problems are as old as borders and wild game laws and aren't problems.

Game wardens can go most anywhere looking for poachers. The rule is old enough that the justification was, and remains, "because it's all the King's game."  They've discovered cameras and drones too.

So if a border agent can patrol a border, even on private property, and a game warden can look for poachers, even on private property, and those rules aren't going away for good reasons, can they leave behind a camera?

Installing a GPS tracking device is a search. Using a thermal imaging device on a home is too, but only because those aren't in common use.

Is a camera?

If I saw FL's version of a game warden wandering the property, I wouldn't question it other than to think it's a pretty unlikely place to look for poachers. But poachers deliberately go to the darndest places, so...

If he left a camera, he should ask me. If not, my camera when I spot it, just like the TX rancher/lawyer above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if I had to choose between government agents placing cameras around my property without permission or government agents building a giant, stupid wall across my property, I'd take the cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 1:03 AM, Left Shift said:

Now we've got TSA with 50 caliber dogballs mounted on their patrol boats herding us around.  But rarely boarding.  I have been told to "head into the beach" by megaphone as I've tried to maintain proper distance from a boomer heading out to sea.  Trying to explain/shout that I'm already in 15' of water and draw 11' so turning in shore is not a viable option has worked so far.

We were boarded years ago off the Cape Romano shoals.

Blacked out CG vessel made me nervous for a bit as I watched them approach on radar, then the lights all came on when they got close.

They poked around for a while and didn't seem to be in a big hurry to leave until I pointed out that there was maybe a foot of water under my boat and we were drifting closer to the shoal and I was soon going to call them for a rescue tow. They left in a hurry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2019 at 11:47 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Libertarians are always good for insulting. Especially when your property is being looted by the government.

Why would you insult the only people who are likely to help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Wall thread:

20 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
20 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Build a wall and make Virginians (and Montanians) pay for it.. :) 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/gop-state-lawmakers-trump-border-wall/index.html

 

A Republican Montana state senator and Republican delegates from West Virginia plan to introduce measures to allocate state funds to help build President Donald Trump's proposed wall along the southern US border.

Republican Montana state Sen. Scott Sales confirmed to CNN on Tuesday that he will propose a bill that would allocate $8 million in state funds to help build Trump's border wall.

Montana has miles of virtually undefended border. And wall building jobs to hand out.

The government could use eminent domain to seize the necessary property and build a giant, stupid wall along the Canadian border. Some really cold-tolerant folks could build it along the Alaskan border too, since I guess that one counts. Does anyone sneak into Alaska?

Canada has thousands of felons running around with assault weapons so the emergency is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2019 at 6:38 AM, dogballs Tom said:
On 1/10/2019 at 12:40 PM, Olsonist said:

Dogballs is whatabouting to excuse his boy Shitstain.

Hey Grrr,

What do you think about the veracity of the bolded bit above?

Can he fool you twice?

I guess doing the legwork is only sometimes deserving of thanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shrinking Emergency
 

Quote

 

The undocumented population, especially from Mexico, is actually falling. There were 10,665,000 illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2017, down more than a million from 11,725,000 in 2010, the study says. The drop was largely a result of the undocumented population from Mexico falling by more than 1.3 million, from 6.6 million in 2010 to 5.29 million in 2017.

This was particularly apparent in 2016 and 2017. More than 500,000 Mexicans left the undocumented population by leaving, dying, or becoming legal residents, compared to less than 150,000 Mexicans who became undocumented residents.

 

Maybe someone Made Mexico Grate Again while we weren't looking? I didn't hear a giant sucking sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nice tap-dance, thanks for coming out into the open as a Trumpette.


Hah! Someone else who will buy into Olsonist's line that I'm all about promoting Trump.

It's funnier in this thread.

Libertarians kinda like property rights, Steamer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about instead of shitposting on the internet you shut the fuck up and do something useful for "freedom" dogballs ?

now - I bumped your thread. Bump the Gary Johnson thread - or one of the others -  bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

How about instead of shitposting on the internet you shut the fuck up and do something useful for "freedom"

You're a stupid dickhead!

 

 

(Following your example, I figure calling people names on the internet must be useful for freedom. How'd I do?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 7:56 PM, d'ranger said:

Anybody who thinks its just a matter of fact process in taking Texas landowners land should first visualize hitting a hornets nest.  There are several things I agree with Tom on, this is one of them. Drugs laws and property seizures being a couple more.

Know New Texans!

I never heard of Hurd, so he's new to me anyway.
 

Quote

 

In an interview published today with Rolling Stone, Rep. Will Hurd (R–Texas) poked holes in President Donald Trump's proposed wall on the U.S.–Mexico border.

A wall would be "the most expensive and least effective way to do border security," said Hurd, whose congressional district runs along the southern border from El Paso to San Antonio. Among Hurd's concerns is that building the wall would require lots of land seizures. "There's a thing in Texas we care about called private property rights," he told Rolling Stone. "To get the property rights with eminent domain," he said, "would impact 1,000 property owners in Texas."

 

Justin Amash has a weird idea: how about we talk price before finalizing the transfer?
 

Quote

 

Aside from Hurd, not very many GOP House members have expressed concern over the private property ramifications of building a wall. The exception is Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.), who last week introduced a bill that would likely stop Trump from using the "military version of eminent domain."

"It is unjust for the government to seize someone's property with a lowball offer and then put the burden on them to fight for what they are still owed," Amash said in a statement. "My bill will stop this practice by requiring that a property's fair value be finalized before DHS takes ownership."

The bill has zero cosponsors, and its passage is uncertain, if not unlikely. Still, it's encouraging to see that some members of Congress, like Amash and Hurd, still care about private property.

 

I'd say unlikely if not impossible. The thing about an offer you can't refuse is, you can't refuse. That's what makes them so attractive to big government social planners and crony capitalists alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seizing property from Americans for the stupid wall seems to me a legitimate exercise of eminent domain, but what about those other Americans?

Quote

In Arizona, some 62 miles of the route is owned by the Tohono O'odham Nation, which opposes the wall because it would damage the tribe's land and impede ties with members across the border.

The tribes are sovereign nations, sorta. I would not question the authority of the government to take land from US citizens to build a stupid wall. It's as old as borders. But taking land from another nation to build a wall for our nation? That's probably a different legal matter, possibly involving any treaties which may remain unbroken. There must be one or two we haven't broken, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites