Trumps Love Affair with Eminent Domain

Recently Marco Rubio ran an ad showing Trumps abuse of Eminent Domain, accusing him of having a pattern of sleaze. The ad says; Vera Coking’s home was all she had left*, but it stood in Donald Trumps way, Trump wanted Coking’s home, “to park limousines for his casino”. To him, she was a nobody. His response at one of his campaign rallies was, “They take these ads they’re vicious and they say anything. They say anything, (Hello, have you listened to yourself lately) I just hope you don’t believe the crap because it’s all crap, okay, They’re lies. (Donald, you can’t run and hide from what is actually recorded in legal records) They talk about eminent domain; without eminent domain you wouldn’t have a road, without eminent domain, you wouldn’t have hospitals (yes we would, the property would be purchased at market value, not “fair market value” set by a government agency), you wouldn’t have anything. By the way, without eminent domain, you wouldn’t have the keystone pipelines”, (we still don’t, could that have been a ploy to put more property under government control). His response was rather provocative, to say the least. He has also said “eminent domain — when it comes to jobs, roads, and the public good (who determines public good)– I think it’s a wonderful thing.” (You are wrong Donald, without eminent domain we might have more private property ownership, it is not the job of the government to determine if a person loses their right to the property they have worked hard to pay for just for the sake of a turtle, (or any number of reasons) that isn’t even endangered, we wouldn’t have situations like recently happened in Nevada and what may be more intrusion by the government over “grazing rights.”) “While I will vote for Trump if he gets the Republican nomination I surely don’t have to support his tyrannical rants.

If you don’t see a problem with the government using eminent domain to take property away from the owners or you don’t see a problem with the government creating the Bureau of Land Management or any other number of government agencies you desperately need to learn more about the purpose of our government. Our government has created dozens of agencies (illegally by Constitutional Law) to grow the government and it seems they are now focusing “public land” and “privately owned land” as their next target. There are no legal reasons for the government to own or control any property except for the defined need for very limited reasons. Do your own research on Constitutional Law, not from a government or a state funded school that has their lesson plans written by people who survive on government grants, but from a resource that is self-funded or through donations for the purpose of public education in the Constitution. Oh, if you want to claim the Supreme Court has approved this, just remember who appointed them. You cannot have a self-monitoring, self-disciplining government any more than you can have a child monitor their actions and administer their own discipline.

Inserts are my sarcastic remarks.

* Vera Coking did eventually sell her home but to her demands, not eminent domain demands.

Edited for paragraph spacing.