Border wall

What the Hell Is the 'Military Version of Eminent Domain'?

Whatever it is, it can't be good.

|

NBC News/YouTube screenshot

President Donald Trump says he's willing to use "the military version of eminent domain" to build his proposed wall on the U.S.–Mexico border. It's not exactly clear what he means by that.

Addressing reporters from the Rose Garden today, Trump kept pushing for his ill-advised border wall. But what if Congress refuses to acquiesce to his demand for $5 billion in funding? Why, he'd declare a national emergency "and build [the wall] very quickly," he said.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he can do that, he'd run into another problem right away: The federal government owns less than one-third of the land on the southern border. The rest belongs to other entities, including states, Native American tribes, and private individuals. Most of the border land in Texas is private property.

Not a problem, said Trump: "You have to use eminent domain," he declared. That's when the government forces a property owner to sell, at a price set by the government. "If we had one person that wouldn't sell us…then we wouldn't be able to build proper border security because we'd have that big opening."

"I think it's a fair process," he added.

And what happens if Trump can't seize people's land with normal eminent domain? That's where the "military version" comes in:

As explained, "[Lawsuits are] not going to hold [the wall] up because under the military version of eminent domain and under, actually, homeland security we can do it before we even start."

Hopefully it doesn't look anything like this:

In all seriousness, federal law does allow for military department secretaries to "acquire any interest in land" if "the acquisition is needed in the interest of national defense." But defining building a wall on the southern border as an issue of national defense is a stretch.

It's also worth noting that calling for a "military version of eminent domain" may not be the best way for Trump to sell his wall to the American people. Polls already show that a majority of Americans oppose the project. Further reducing the due process available to border property holders is unlikely to increase that number.

At least it made for some great Twitter reactions from Reps. Jim Hines (D–Conn.) and Justin Amash (R–Mich.), among others:

But the president's fondness for eminent domain in all of its forms should be no surprise. Trump has benefited from eminent domain for decades as a real estate developer. Why would he stop now?

NEXT: Libertarian Party Presidential Hopeful Adam Kokesh Arrested in New Orleans for Failing to Show I.D.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s not exactly clear what he means by that.

    Unlike much of what he says.

    1. In this thread I defeat chemjeff so completely that his mind fails and he begins posting giant walls of gibberish.

      1. Also in this thread, calidissident is caught lying and admits that he doesn’t like me because I didn’t fellate Obama like he does.

        1. Talk about lying – please cite one time where I ever “fellated” Obama.

          Calling you out for lying because your claimed reasoning for constantly attacking Trump-critical posters is blatantly and obviously false to anyone who posted or read comments here during the Obama years is not praising Obama in any way.

          Good God, how insecure do you have to be to reply to the top comment in the thread to claim victory in squabbles below? Seriously, get help.

          1. Shorter calidssident “I’m upset that you caught me lying so I’m going to pretend to be an aspie and not understand what a turn of phrase is”

            1. But since you asked

              Calidissident|1.4.19 @ 5:30PM|#

              You’re not defending him, you just incessantly attack anyone who criticizes him and his policies.

              You sure didn’t take this approach to everyone who constantly criticized Obama for what he said and did.

              Oops!

              1. I find accusations of asperbergers coming from you to be astounding projection. I didn’t pretend to not understand anything, if you seriously believe that I was asking you to provide proof that I ever gave Barack Obama fellatio then perhaps you need to reexamine your own ability to comprehend things.

                Thanks for bolding something I said elsewhere in the thread and stand by. Everyone here who posted then knows that you didn’t behave the same way towards Obama critics then as you behave towards Trump critics now.

                1. “if you seriously believe”

                  I proved you were a liar in this very thread. Of course I don’t take anything your aspie ass says seriously. You’re a proven liar and a TDS victim and you’re raging at me because you know it’s true and hate that I point it out.

                  That is literally what your bolded quote is saying.

                2. “knows that you didn’t behave the same way towards Obama critics”

                  John would say otherwise.

                  But no, the reputation I have is because I went dark for 8 years. Totally makes sense.

                  Your TDS is showing.

                  1. You didn’t prove shit. If you think the bolded statement is me admitting that I supported Obama rather than pointing out your hypocrisy then once again you are showing incredibly poor reading comprehension.

                    I’m not saying you never argued with John or anyone else. As I said below, you’re an insufferable jackass so you rubbed basically everybody the wrong way. But you didn’t jump on John for criticizing Obama every time he did it by bringing up irrelevant shit or slinging personal insults or saying he’s stupid for taking the president seriously. I never recall you using the term “Obama Derangement Syndrome,” once in 8 years yet you’ll fling “TDS!” accusations anytime you get an argument with me or anyone else who’s Trump-critical. Your pretenses of sincerity and consistency here are blatantly bullshit so just give up the act.

                    1. You have TDS and you lied in this very thread.

                      I won this an hour ago.

                    2. “You didn’t prove shit.”

                      Now you sound like jeff trying to pretend he’s not upset.

                    3. “Calidissident|1.4.19 @ 5:30PM|#

                      You’re not defending him, you just incessantly attack anyone who criticizes him and his policies”

                      “Calidissident|1.4.19 @ 5:18PM|#

                      Says the guy who can’t stop defending him.”

                      So you were lying.

                    4. That first comment is sarcasm you fucking idiot. Nobody here is stupid enough to believe that you incessantly attacking anyone who criticizes trumps presidency has nothing to do with defending him and is totally just a coincidence.

                    5. “That first comment is sarcasm you fucking idiot. ”

                      You misspelled “a lie”

                      Now where’s that proof liar.

                    6. No, here’s what happened. You lied. I called you on it and told you to prove it. You couldn’t. Like you can’t prove your other claim. So you lamely lied again and said it was sarcasm.

                    7. The part saying “you’re not defending him” is sarcastic. The part saying that you incessantly attack his critics is true which is obvious to anyone who can read this thread.

                    8. No, here’s what happened. You lied. I called you on it and told you to prove it. You couldn’t. Like you can’t prove your other claim. So you lamely lied again and said it was sarcasm.

                    9. “which is obvious to anyone who can read this thread.”

                      Not as obvious as your attempt at face saving backpedaling.

                    10. There is no backpedaling you fucking idiot.

                      Your arguments are so poorly written that I was under the impression that you were arguing that me saying “you’re not defending him” was a serious admission of prior lying instead of obvious sarcasm. Then when I point that out you try to accuse me of backing down from my claim that you incessantly attack people for criticizing trumps presidency, which I have never backed down from.

                      Your MO is so fucking tiresome and disingenuous.

                    11. “There is no backpedaling you fucking idiot.”

                      Ypu sure seem to be tryong.

                      Meanwhile, you lied, I proved it, and you made several claims you didn’t support, but made excuses about.

                      You’re trying to win, which you ypurself said was “pathetic” and failing at that too.

                      Now get that proof lying bitch. Or you could keep making excuses.

                      “Your arguments”

                      Have nothing to do with anything. You lied and made excuses. You made claims you can’t support. You’re trying to win because you’re a hypocrite.

                      And now you’re suddenly trying to make this about my arguments.

                      Proof bitch. Or just get it over with and admit you have none and were lying again.

                    12. “But you didn’t jump on John for criticizing Obama every time he did it by bringing up irrelevant shit or slinging personal insults or saying he’s stupid for taking the president seriously. ”

                      Actually that’s exactly what I did. Prove otherwise. You made the accusation so prove it.

                      You won’t. Because you can’t. Because you’re lying. But you’ll simply lie more or make an e cuse then flee.

                      It’s what liars like you do.

                    13. How the fuck am I supposed to prove a negative? Link every thread from 2009 onward for everyone to read through? You can’t possibly be this stupid, right? If you did this so constantly it shouldn’t be difficult to link examples comparable to the comments you make now.

                      I criticized Obama all the time when he was president and I can’t recall a single instance of you attacking or insulting me in response. Yet this has happened multiple times just in the last few months in response to comments critical of Trump. Sure is a funny coincidence.

                    14. Also I have never seen anyone as obsessed with declaring victory in internet arguments as you are. It’s hilariously pathetic.

                    15. As you keep posting trying to do the same.

                      You just lie about it.

                    16. You’ve posted multiple times in this thread about how youve won the argument, you even made an off topic reply to the first comment in the thread just to make it more visible. No one else has displayed this level of insecurity in this thread, only you.

                      If you seriously think I’m admitting to defeat because there’s no way to prove a negative about something involving thousands of threads across 8 years then you’re an even bigger idiot than I previously thought. It would be very easy on the other hand for you to prove your case, which you haven’t done.

                    17. “You’ve posted multiple times in this thread about how youve won the argument”

                      As you keep posting trying to do the same.

                      You just lie about it.

                    18. “you even made an off topic reply to the first comment”

                      And you came running.

                      To try to win.

                      And now you’re lying about it.

                    19. “How the fuck am I supposed to prove a negative? ”

                      I accept your admission that you can’t support a claim you stupidly made and now are trying to find a way to disconnect your lying self from.

          2. name one time you didn’t!

            But defining building a wall on the southern border as an issue of national defense is a stretch.

            In any other nation on the face of the earth, 22 million people illegally cross a border to enter a country would be called what it is: Invasion.

            That’s all Trump needs to make his argument. It IS a National Defense issue.

        2. “he doesn’t like me because I didn’t fellate Obama like he does.”

          Well, then how exactly did you fellate Obama?
          Did you forget the balls?
          You can never forget the balls.

  2. “In all seriousness, federal law does allow for military department secretaries to “acquire any interest in land” if “the acquisition is needed in the interest of national defense.””

    Maybe *that’s* what Trump means.

    And depending on what judges you draw, Trump may get deference to his definition of national defense as including border security.

    1. You might find a few judges, including a particular one in Hawaii, who wouldn’t give deference to that, but not a lot of them. Securing the borders when they’re being crossed by foreign nationals contrary to government policy is about as traditional as national defense gets.

      1. Abso-fucking-lutely!

      2. I’m simply acknowledging the politics of the situation.

        I know there supposedly aren’t any Obama judges, but if hypothetically they were, they’d love a chance to rebuke Trump.

  3. I’m sure nefarious RBG would sway SCOTUS to stop Trump. She hates eminent domain and is all about the people’s rights!

    Oh, wait…..(Kelo)

    1. She’ll say that eminent domain is cool but the military eminent-domain statute doesn’t apply because border enforcement isn’t national security.

      1. The open border people just are arguing their positions badly. Border security is absolutely within the power of the federal government. Saying its not just makes us laugh at the open border people.

        Its securing borders vs open borders and the Constitution has already decided that power lies with the federal government from 1808.

        Open border people dont have a majority opinion, so some resort to falsehoods. This wont convince me to change my mind.

        1. We had “open borders” (actual open borders, not the modern right’s definition which is essentially “more immigration than I want” or “Not turning the country into a police state to hunt down every illegal immigrant”) for long past 1808.

          But that’s entirely beside the point. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the president to build a wall along the border without Congressional approval, or to use “the military version” of eminent domain to do so.

          1. Hey liar. Ever gonna stop lying?

            1. Fuck off Tulpa.

              1. So no. That’s what we all knew.

    2. She’ll be dead by then. Doubt she’ll last out the rest of this year.

      1. You are too optimistic. She’s a tough old bird, with a strong will to live.. Such people hang long after you’d expect them to kick it.

      2. Keep hoping, she’s going to be retiring in 2021 when a new democrat is in office.

    1. Not sure why I clicked on that.

      1. I’m flagging her(?) comments as spam if they don’t really have anything substantive to say.

        1. Hey we do it to you Hihn, so it’s only fair.

        2. Jgalt1975, You get flagged for being a troll all the time, so that’s fair.

        3. Can we (the nation) flag Trump’s comments as spam?

          When was the last time he ever had anything substantive to say?

          1. Trump’s Tweets are public record, don’t cha know.

            1. Yep. Good for evidence of an impeachment conviction!

          2. Trump really is the most transparent Prez in history. The naked truth can be ugly. Read about what went on in the LBJ and Nixon White Houses. Some really disgusting stuff. I’m sure if we had tapes of Clinton or Obama they would be frightening.

      2. @A Lady of Reason once asked the question “What made politics personal to you?”. I will take a stab at that question and say that politics became personal the day a salesman came to my door to try and sell me a shit load of snake oil and tried to convince me that my neighbor agreed to pay for it. At this point I believe A Lady of Reason and Drumpf supporters would call it a win if the wall was made out of adobe!

    2. dafuq is dis?

  4. “But defining building a wall on the southern border as an issue of national defense is a stretch….”

    No, it isn’t.

    Joe, I understand you didn’t write this sincerely; it is but a virtue-signal to your masters at the magazine and others at progressive companies you’d like to work for someday.

    1. Yes it is, because illegal entry, by unorganized, peaceful migrants, is and has always been regarded as a civil crime, to fall under the jurisdiction of civil authorities, not military authorities. It is not an act of war if a penniless Guatemalan sets foot on American soil. It would be an act of war if an organized military force, under the direction of a foreign power, did cross the border. But that isn’t what happening and that is not the reason why Trump wants to build the wall.

      1. Don’t confuse him with facts. He’s on a roll with his feelz.

      2. “by unorganized, peaceful migrants”

        Pull the other one, it’s got bells on. Unorganized – false. Peaceful – false. Why were they throwing kids onto razor wire and rocks at Border Patrol? That’s *so* peaceful.

        1. Are they coming here to conquer territory and put it under the jurisdiction of a foreign power? No.

          Why are you so determined to treat illegal immigrants and refugees as if they are scoundrels?

          1. Also, the whole point of the caravan was to travel together to the border to apply for asylum. They weren’t exactly trying to slip past the border unnoticed by becoming an international news story for weeks. How exactly is a wall supposed to address that in any way?

            1. I know, right? Do enemy invaders typically announce to the entire world of their intention to ‘invade’ in a few months’ time? And then peacefully line up at the border gate to apply for legal permission to enter?

          2. I agree, and by the way he claims that the terrorists (ISIS) has been defeated so who are these so called terrorist coming across the border that he is talking about? I’m confused!

        2. Re: Chem_Geek,

          Why were they throwing kids onto razor wire and rocks at Border Patrol?

          Who is “they”? The few dozens that you got to see on Tee Vee on Fox News?

          Most immigrants coming to the border ARE peaceful. They haven’t hurt anyone. Your hatred for them does not excuse your lies.

          1. “Who is “they”? ”

            The people throwing kids onto razor wire.

            Jesus Christ man he fucking wrote it out for you.

            1. Re: Tulpa,

              The people throwing kids onto razor wire.

              Yes, a few DOZEN. Not “immigrants.” Chem_Geek is suggesting that all were throwing kids onto razor wire (which they weren’t, they were trying to get them across the border to safety).

              1. Hey you’re the idiot who asked “who” when he had already answered it.

          2. I know, right? I’d like to know how so many people around here like Chem_Geek can peer into the souls of all these illegal immigrants and just know for certain that they are up to no good.

            1. Don’t ask me I was just answering a very simple question for a very simple person.

      3. I read that whole cryfest twice. Nowhere do you actually do a single thing that demonstrates your claim that “Yes it is”

        Do you actually have a sunstantive argument? Because that wasn’t one and you seem to think it was.

        1. “Do you actually have a sunstantive argument?”

          I’m not sure what a “sunstantive” argument is, but I seriously doubt that a Tulpuppy would be capable of making one!

          Tulpuppy, though, CAN always be relied upon to spout slobberish and gibberish on command! Roll over, fetch, play dead, and spout slobberish and gibberish for us, Tulpuppy! We know that you can do it! Commencing brainless, mindless grade-school-level insults in 3, 2, 1…

            1. Good boy, Tulpuppy! Respond to that stimulus-response thing now! And I don’t even have to offer you a REAL treat; you are content to receive my meaty bone in your imagination!

            2. Here, Tulpuppy, here-Boy! Here is an example of what possibly MIGHT be a “sunstantive” argument for you!

              The collective hive mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that The Collective Hive created, The Collective Hive gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies? And now also property confiscations for wall-building? So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

              Those of us who like individual freedom, would like for Government Almighty to SHRINK, for once, instead of always making itself BIGGER to fix all of the problems created by Government Almighty in the first place! And just about every day, I see arguments on these pages, that justify the ever-increasing might and power of The Collective Hive, especially when I want to hire, or otherwise associate with, an illegal sub-human.

                1. Are you real, or are you a Russian troll-bot? Maybe even a satanic troll-bot, an evil-one troll-snot, an anti-free-will troll-snot? A Hihnister troll-snot?

                  Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!!!!

                  1. Hey Hihn, when are you gonna get to the adult conversations you’re always stupidly bitching about?

                    Or to fucking off?

                    1. Just as soon as you stop posting utterly mindless bullshit!

                      In days of old,
                      When knights were bold,
                      And toilets weren’t invented,
                      We stopped by the road,
                      And dropped our load,
                      And walked away contented!

                      The days of old are over now… We have toilets now. Please be considerate of others, and drop your loads there, instead of a nice, clean, rational web site like Reason.com!

                    2. Wow you’re still crying.

                      If you fucked off Hihn you could compose yourself.

                      Might not get taken by conmen like Zimbardo afterwards.

      4. ” It is not an act of war if a penniless Guatemalan sets foot on American soil. It would be an act of war if an organized military force, under the direction of a foreign power, did cross the border”

        And if that force were comprised of penniless Guatemalans?

        Jeffy’s little brain cramps.

        1. So the wall is going to protect us from an organized military force of penniless Guatemalans? Sounds reasonable…..

          1. If someone ever claims that you should talk to them about it.

      5. perhaps in the individual case.
        But when there are more than 20 MILLION of them, stealing over $100 BILLION a year from US taxpayers… we ought to have a bounty on them and no bag limit!

      6. But when the majority of illicit and deadly drugs as well as Human trafficking are pouring across the border sponsored by drug cartels then there is a problem that could be considered criminal in nature … maybe not National Security. I would argue that since there is a rise in foreign nationals from China and the Middle East likewise jumping the border, that this likewise constitutes a risk to our national security

    2. Re: Barnstormer,

      No, it isn’t [a stretch to call the wall a national security issue].

      You’re right, it isn’t a stretch. It is a GAWD-DAMNED LIE which Trump made up on the fly to justify the land grab he wants to perpetrate, when confronted with the fact that people own things, like land and stuff, that isn’t HIS for the taking.

      You gawd-damned fool.

      1. Oh, pshaw! I’ve been insulted by an imbecile.

        Build the wall. Whatever it takes to stem the illegal tide (of any stripe).

    3. It absolutely is considering border crossing is way way down over the past 20 years lol. He has no ground to stand. If Mexico military was crossing over then sure he could send troops and build a wall. That ain’t happening, this is a matter for Congress not the President. Anyone who knows anything about the Constitution would know that.

  5. “the military version of eminent domain” to build his proposed wall on the U.S.?Mexico border. It’s not exactly clear what he means by that.

    Not clear? It only means one thing.

    You use people with guns to drive people off their land – or kill them if they won’t budge. The only thing unclear about such an act is whether he’ll do this on the American or Mexican side of the border.

    The man talks out his ass so much and you can’t take anything he says seriously – even when he’s being serious – but this is ridiculous.

    1. Now now. You know that the standards are lower for Trump. Trump is permitted to say anything he wants and not be held accountable for any of it.

      To the left, when Sarah Palin put bullseye cartoons on a map, that was supposed to be incitement for a crazy to murder Gabby Giffords.

      To the right, when Obama quoted a movie line about bringing a knife to a gun fight, that was supposed to be incitement for BLM riots and mayhem.

      But if Trump says something awful, it doesn’t mean anything! Not a single thing! No one can possibly hold Trump to ANY standard whatsoever!

      1. He’s a fucking used car salesman. He’s a real estate huckster. If you take a single word of what he says seriously, that is your failure, and you need to stop worshipping the executive office.

        1. Says the guy who can’t stop defending him.

          1. Post one defense of him anywhere from me.

          2. “He’s a fucking used car salesman. He’s a real estate huckster. If you take a single word of what he says seriously, that is your failure, and you need to stop worshipping the executive office.”

            That sure sounds like a defense of him…

            Seriously I doubt you could have picked a worse place to lie about me.

            1. You are excusing a low standard being applied to Trump, one that would not be applied to anyone else in his position.

              1. No actually, I’m expecting people to behave rationally and stop pretending he is suddenly something different because he’s the President.

                You can’t find a single word in there that excuses anything.

                1. You know what? You’re exactly right. I shouldn’t take trolls and liars seriously. That goes equally well for Trump as it does for yourself. I doubt you actually believe half of the stuff you spew on these forums.

                  1. I literally insulted the guy repeatedly and you said I waa making excuses for him

                    Get some god damn self awareness before your TDS makes your life even more miserable.

                    1. Tulpa,
                      Actually, I said “You are excusing a low standard being applied to Trump”.

                      I also say,
                      Now principles discovered off increasing how reasonably middletons men. Add seems out man met plate court sense. His joy she worth truth given. All year feet led view went sake. You agreeable breakfast his set perceived immediate. Stimulated man are projecting favourable middletons can cultivated.

              2. Seriously quote the excuse part. Quote it. You are notorious for reading shit that doesn’t exist so quote it.

                1. Here is the only response you deserve, Tulpa:

                  The orthodox consent marks a patent beside the inside driver. The line alarms a goldfish. Every academic abides below the surgery. An adult symphony washes beneath the stream.

                  1. I’m sorry that you made bad assumptions and I made you look foolish by pointing that out.

            2. You’re not defending him, you just incessantly attack anyone who criticizes him and his policies.

              You sure didn’t take this approach to everyone who constantly criticized Obama for what he said and did.

              1. “Calidissident|1.4.19 @ 5:30PM|#

                You’re not defending him, you just incessantly attack anyone who criticizes him and his policies”

                “Calidissident|1.4.19 @ 5:18PM|#

                Says the guy who can’t stop defending him.”

                So you were lying.

              2. “You sure didn’t take this approach to everyone who constantly criticized Obama for what he said and did.”

                My rep says otherwise.

                1. Tulpa,
                  Smallest directly families surprise honoured am an. Speaking replying mistress him numerous she returned feelings may day. Evening way luckily son exposed get general greatly. Zealously prevailed be arranging do. Set arranging too dejection september happiness. Understood instrument or do connection no appearance do invitation. Dried quick round it or order. Add past see west felt did any. Say out noise you taste merry plate you share. My resolve arrived is we chamber be removal.

                  1. That’s the most coherent thing you’ve ever posted.

                    1. I’m treating words the same way you treat words. As random collections of letters and numbers intended not to communicate an idea, but to provoke a reaction. So that is how I’ll treat words when it comes to you. Not about communicating ideas. That is beyond hopeless for you.

                      Not him old music think his found enjoy merry. Listening acuteness dependent at or an. Apartments thoroughly unsatiable terminated sex how themselves. She are ten hours wrong walls stand early. Domestic perceive on an ladyship extended received do. Why jennings our whatever his learning gay perceive. Is against no he without subject. Bed connection unreserved preference partiality not unaffected. Years merit trees so think in hoped we as.

                    2. At least you’ve finally accepted tjat you can’t win a debate with me.

                      I never thought you’d try to get spam banned to be honest.

                      Kind of puts the lie to your claims of higher motives.

                    3. There is no DEBATE with you, Tulpa. There never has been. Because a debate requires two individuals using words to communicate ideas. You don’t use words to communicate ideas. You use words to provoke reactions of anger.

                      On recommend tolerably my belonging or am. Mutual has cannot beauty indeed now sussex merely you. It possible no husbands jennings ye offended packages pleasant he. Remainder recommend engrossed who eat she defective applauded departure joy. Get dissimilar not introduced day her apartments. Fully as taste he mr do smile abode every. Luckily offered article led lasting country minutes nor old. Happen people things oh is oppose up parish effect. Law handsome old outweigh humoured far appetite.

                    4. “There is no DEBATE with you, Tulpa. There never has been”

                      Agreed, you simply whine and then descend into gibberish.

                      Like you did here today.

                      At least you are learning.

                    5. Huh. Selectively quoting people in order to distort their meaning and thereby provoke a reaction of anger. Sounds like Tulpa to me!

                      Case read they must it of cold that. Speaking trifling an to unpacked moderate debating learning. An particular contrasted he excellence favourable on. Nay preference dispatched difficulty continuing joy one. Songs it be if ought hoped of. Too carriage attended him entrance desirous the saw. Twenty sister hearts garden limits put gay has. We hill lady will both sang room by. Desirous men exercise overcame procured speaking her followed.

                    6. And you have opened my eyes to not taking trolls and liars seriously. So I won’t. I won’t take anything you say seriously. Because your words aren’t about communicating ideas. They never have been.

                      Advantage old had otherwise sincerity dependent additions. It in adapted natural hastily is justice. Six draw you him full not mean evil. Prepare garrets it expense windows shewing do an. She projection advantages resolution son indulgence. Part sure on no long life am at ever. In songs above he as drawn to. Gay was outlived peculiar rendered led six.

                    7. Chemjeff, yes, go man go!!! You’re making a LOT more sense than Tulpuppy EVER has!!!!

                      I think you should PATENT this stuff you’re talking of!!!

                      This and similar designs are all shielded from raiding barbaric hordes of greedy-pig patent lawyers: A mint-steel-blue-colored ornithopter with rum, me-laddy! With patient, never-ending obedience to the dictates of Al Gore, this rocket engine mummifies politically demented gene patents. Ionizing electro-magnetically, the erectile filthy blame-deflecting methodology modifies politically correct persons as space-time-warped by European hypothesis. Not only does this low-fructose-metallic-oxide-free ionizer incorporate tectonic-plate theories, it is also Satan-approved as a cone head. Also donated to the public domain is this: A civet-nibbled salad and garnishes with hazelnut topping.

                      These designs are all off limits to parasitical patent pigs: Not only does this legal computer interpret planets, it can also, in an emergency, serve as a robotic surgeon. Percolating in the Realm of Dungeons and Dragons, the low-current random vortex rectifies jet engines tortured by degraded races. Orbiting around the 15th law of gravity, this variable geometry engine mineralizes organically cached patients. Furthermore, greedy patent lawyers are hereby served notice that I have already documented this: A bacteria-chowder and lemon with fried spam.

                    8. The difference is, however, that the reaction I am intending to provoke with my random words, at least as they concern responses to you Tulpa, is one of amusement, not anger.

                      He moonlight difficult engrossed an it sportsmen. Interested has all devonshire difficulty gay assistance joy. Unaffected at ye of compliment alteration to. Place voice no arise along to. Parlors waiting so against me no. Wishing calling are warrant settled was luckily. Express besides it present if at an opinion visitor.

                    9. Particularly, Tulpa, I think this is very apropos:

                      Imagine was you removal raising gravity. Unsatiable understood or expression dissimilar so sufficient. Its party every heard and event gay. Advice he indeed things adieus in number so uneasy. To many four fact in he fail. My hung it quit next do of. It fifteen charmed by private savings it mr. Favourable cultivated alteration entreaties yet met sympathize. Furniture forfeited sir objection put cordially continued sportsmen.

                    10. Wow you’re really upset. Kind of makes all your claims about trying to have an intelligent conversation look like lies.

                    11. I’m not upset. I’m not upset at all. I’m laughing my ass off over here, actually.

                      She exposed painted fifteen are noisier mistake led waiting. Surprise not wandered speedily husbands although yet end. Are court tiled cease young built fat one man taken. We highest ye friends is exposed equally in. Ignorant had too strictly followed. Astonished as travelling assistance or unreserved oh pianoforte ye. Five with seen put need tore add neat. Bringing it is he returned received raptures.

                    12. “I’m not upset.”

                      Dead giveaway that you are.

                      And then there’s the giant walls of spam.

                      Great job.

                    13. And then there’s the giant walls of spam.

                      I learned from you, Tulpa.

                      Greatly cottage thought fortune no mention he. Of mr certainty arranging am smallness by conveying. Him plate you allow built grave. Sigh sang nay sex high yet door game. She dissimilar was favourable unreserved nay expression contrasted saw. Past her find she like bore pain open. Shy lose need eyes son not shot. Jennings removing are his eat dashwood. Middleton as pretended listening he smallness perceived. Now his but two green spoil drift.

                    14. Wow you’re still really upset. You even admit you lowered yourself to behavior you constantly complain about.

                      That says just about everything about you and your principles, or rather, lack of them.

                    15. You may not directly defend him but your defense of everything he does makes the whole point a bit academic. It is like saying I can’t stand HRC but then go one to defend everything she does and says. You are full of shit. And everyone here can see it.

                2. Your bad rep here was because you’re an insufferable jackass, not because you whined every time somebody criticized Obama the way you do whenever people criticize Trump.

                  1. Prove that. You keep saying it then providing nothing but your word to support it and you openly lied in this thread so we know what your word is worth.

                    1. Hey wow look still no proof.

              3. “…you just incessantly attack anyone who criticizes him and his policies.”

                Cali nails it!!!!! This is the EXACT thing that I have noticed about Tulpuppy! His love of Trump-dick-sucking and illegal sub-human-hating is made clear by exactly who it is that he hurls his grade-school-level insults at!!!

                1. “Cali nails it!!!!! ”

                  Agreed, he got the reason why he outed himself as a liar exactly right.

                  Now fuck off Hihn.

    2. Nagammammon! I loved helping you correct your misconceptions about what “scold” meant!

      1. And here you are, scolding again.

    3. Kinda like the idea of it being on the Mexican side. Sort of, “If you won’t stop the flood, we will. And Mexico will PAY for it!”

      1. Of course you do. After all, what’s killing a few hundred thousand BSP’s, right?

  6. I think he means like Wilson seizing the Federal Enameling and Stamping Company during WWI.
    Or Roosevelt and Truman seizing coal mines during WWII.
    (Repeated again during Korean war by Truman.)

    Only the land seizures by Trump would be more permanent.
    I think Trump means actions like those when he uses the phrase “military-version of eminent domain.”

    1. Ah yes, the great freedom-loving heroes Wilson, Truman, and FDR.

      Trump certainly fits their mold.

    2. I agree that’s probably what he meant, but I highly doubt there are five votes on SCOTUS to overturn the Youngstown Steel decision.

        1. Says Tulpupply the Russian troll-bot.

          1. Cry more Hihn, then fuck off.

  7. Wait, a potential Third Amendment case?

    1. Woo Hoo!!!! Trump the Constitutionalist!

    2. “We don’t need the 3rd amendment… that NEVER happens!”

      – Too many people to count.

    3. I too immediately thought of this, but probably not. The founders, in their infinite assumptions of basic human decency, put a ton of exceptions into the amendment that can be met simply by an unscrupulous executive declaring it to be so. Is America in a time of war? Sure, as long as american troops are somewhere in the world doing something no matter how unrelated it might be to Mexico.

  8. It’s also worth noting that calling for a “military version of eminent domain” may not be the best way for Trump to sell his wall to the American people.

    He has no intention of selling his wall to the American people per s?. He’s selling his wall to his adoring fans, made up of unhinged yahoos who harbor resentment and suspicion towards people who don’t look like them, the free market, free trade, basic economics, intellectuals, the press, the “changing demographics foisted upon them”, Walmart, Amazon, liberals, etc., by paining this picture of all-powerful Trump taking the land from unwilling, ungrateful and unpatriotic owners who, like the kulaks, must be taught a necessary lesson.

  9. Why I am not surprised to find no comments from LC1789 on this post? Is there a partial government shutdown in Russia right now that I haven’t heard about?

    1. Because in Russia, government shuts down YOU.

    2. Poor trolls. The trolls cannot get paid in Chinese Yuans, unless I post.

      1. Says Tulpuppy the programmed response, programmed by AS (Artificial Stupidity).

        1. You programmed me? That doesn’t seem right…

          Fuck off now Hihn.

          1. Your mindlessness programmed itself. Cosmic, Intergalactic Justice SUCKS, when you’re on the RXing end of it. Give UP on your ego trip, and things MIGHT go better for ye!

            Just a word to the wise… Sad to say, I think that you have deliberately turned a deaf ear to that… But TRY, for your own good, to understand that FREE WILL means you have to decide for yourself, are you going to be a benevolent human being, or a benevolent Russian spam-bot, or whatever you are, or are trying to be… Or are you to be, not benevolent, but malevolent? It’s looking pretty bleak to me right now, and I might suggest, it’s high time to turn things around!!!

  10. “But defining building a wall on the southern border as an issue of national defense is a stretch.”

    No. No, it isn’t. It’s LITERALLY national defense.

    I get it, TDS is a hellofa drug.

    1. I can’t possibly think of any negative repercussions to letting the president use “national defense” as an emergency justification to stop civil offenses.

      Shrieks of “TDS!” from people defending him for proposing to seize vast swathes of private property by executive fiat in order to wall off the border is absolutely hilarious. As if supposedly “pro-liberty” people contorting themselves in this manner isn’t deranged.

    2. Re: Chem_Geek

      It’s LITERALLY national defense.

      You’re deluded. Or a liar. Take your pick.

      Besides it is telling that you would in such a cavalier way accept that Trump simply grabs land under the guise that the country is being invaded. By whom? Poor brown people, of course.

      Fuck. You.

    3. Not really. National defense is oriented against enemy military action, whether irregulars (terrorists) or regulars. Illegal immigrants from LA at their worst are organized crime members, which is a task for law enforcement and not the military. We are lucky to have non-military police, let’s not surrender that to the federal government.

      Besides, if it really were to counteract all those LA terrorists itching to do damage here in the US a wall won’t be very effective. International terrorists are well-funded or otherwise resourceful. Kinda like how a myriad of flight regulations didn’t stop 9/11 from occurring.

    4. It is not national defense. You can call it a problem, if you like, one that needs to be addressed, but there is no threat on our southern border. It is no crisis. It is like when proggies whine about how hunger is a crisis, or crumbling schools is a crisis, or infrastructure, etc. etc. Everything is always a fucking end of the world crisis. This is a bunch of bullshit made up to scare you into giving up your rights and letting the government seize the rights of others. Stop being fucking cowards scared of a few underfed, 5’3″ guatemalans who just want to put on siding and pour concrete for the sidewalks in the new subdivision.

      1. What’s your address?

  11. Next he’ll want to quarter solidiers in my home.

    1. Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      Technically Trump can, since the USA is at war and quartering soldiers in private homes could be proscribed by law.

      1. Re: lovecons…. stop the pretense, liar.

        since the USA is at war

        Who THE FUCK told you that the US is at war? With whom? Where’s the war declaration from Congress?

        1. Congress?

          How quaint.

          1. Re: Tulpa,

            Yes, very quaint – except that the idiot I’m responding to suggests he loves the constitution, if one trusts the sincerity behind his nickname.

            1. They haven’t gotten to the part in his high school class where they discuss how the constitution lays out the requirements for declaring war yet.

              1. Hi there, I’m sure your sheltered mental institution is very nice, but here in the real world that hasn’t been the way it works for decades.

                  1. Tulpuppy is a refugee from treatment by the eminent genius psychologist-therapist Phillip Zimbardo, who has DESPERATELY been trying to cure Tulpuppy, but Tulpuppy valiantly resists!!! So you have to cut Tulpuppy a break, and allow him-her (AKA Mary Hihn?) to retreat to his-her “safe space”.

                    Be tolerant now!!!

                    1. I’m sorry you weren’t smart enough to avoid beleiving a quack.

                      Now fuck off Hihn.

                  2. So why are you pretending your point matters?

              2. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
                To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

        2. AUMF?

          1. “War Powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.”

            Here you go junior. But please feel free to quarter troops in your own house. Keep them away from mine.

            1. That didn’t refute him at all.

              1. So you’re gonna be as dumb as him and claim the country is in a state of war because of the AUMF? Well, when that’s over can we remain in a state of war because of the drug War…or the war on Poverty…or the war against cancer?

                1. Tulpuppy is on a war against rationality and Good Will Towards All. There is NOTHING we can do to persuade him-her (AKA Mary Hihn) in his-her war, his-her mind and will have been enslaved…

                  GOOD LUCK to Tulpuppy and his-her fellow slaves! They’ll need it badly!

                  1. I like that I make you cry Hihn.

                    Now fuck off.

                2. “So you’re gonna be as dumb as him and claim the country is in a state of war because of the AUMF? ”

                  Because you’re smart in pretending our military isn’t widely engaged in attacking belligerents?

                  It’s war. Only a very stupid person thinks a lack of congressional declaration changes that.

                  1. Tulpa now says “only stupid people” defend the Constitution.
                    Any more doubts on his blatant fascism?
                    Typical Trumpsters … when the President commits suicide,

                    Before today, who knew how totally stupid the commentariat is, the authoritarian faction?

                    1. “Tulpa now says “only stupid people” defend the Constitution”

                      No he doesn’t. Why lie?

                      Oh right you’re stupid. It’s why you think me calling out your many screenames is somehow contradictory.

                    2. “Because you’re smart in pretending our military isn’t widely engaged in attacking belligerents?”

                      Hey dumbfuck, the issue was if the country was in a state of war or not. To be “in a state of war” there has to be a declaration of war. Or course, I wouldn’t expect a retarded chickenfucker such as yourself to understand that. Fuck off.

                    3. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
                      To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

                      Poor McGoo hates the Constitution and cannot cite where the Constitution says how to issue a DoW.

                    4. “Poor McGoo hates the Constitution and cannot cite where the Constitution says how to issue a DoW.”

                      Please cite where the Constitution says how to issue of DoW.

      2. What is this, everyone trying to recreate the conditions prior to the Revolutionary War?

        1. I certainly dont want that but I am here to correct the record.

          The Founders were not against ANY quartering of troops.

          The Founders were against involuntary quartering of Redcoats during peacetime and having no say in how Redcoats were quartered during war, since King George did not usually consult the serfs when enacting laws.

          1. No. You’re just too stupid to know the difference between the AUMF and a formal declaration of war as described in the constitution you claim to love.

            1. The difference is semantics. If you think otherwise you’re dumber than old mex.

              1. Except it’s not semantics, the constitution is still the law even you prefer to wipe your ass with it.

                1. And yet, our military wages war without out. I win this one.

                  1. You win. Congrats.

                    1. “Mcgoo95|1.4.19 @ 6:30PM|#

                      You win. Congrats.”

                      Thanks, I knew you could stop being stupid.

                    2. “Thanks, I knew you could stop being stupid.”

                      Yea, now you can get back to fucking that dead chicken in your backyard. #winning

                2. Tulpa DEFENDS shitting on the Constitution! WHY?

                  Because somebody else did it!

                  Trumptards be just like Trump.
                  Whiny psychopaths,

                  1. Fuck off Hihn, no one is surprised you can’t tell the difference between recognizing reality and shitting on the constitution.

                    You proved you can’t see reality a long time ago Hihn.

                    1. My name’s not Hihn. The earth is round. Obama was born in Hawaii.
                      And it took Pelosi a single day for Trump to totally self-destruct.

                      Keep bellowing, loser.
                      (smirk)

                    2. It’s pretty fucking obvious that Tulpa is just one of Hihn’s deranged multiple personalities. Note the same unhinged attacks and obsessiveness about winning. Also, he’s not afraid to double down when he’s been proven to be wrong. He also slobbers all over himself. How much more proof is necessary?

                    3. Get a life, goobers.

                    4. We do need to come up with a new name for the bold sock troll.

                      The real Hihn got him banned from Reason, because the troll was causing real world problems for the real one. We should not continue the problem by calling it Hihn.

          2. The Founders didn’t put any restrictions on quartering troops in the 1789 Constitution.

        2. Careful, you’ll give loveconstitution an erection with talk like that.

          1. I already commented troll.

            1. If it lasts more than 4 hours, consult a physician.

      3. In case you forgot the basic parameters of the document you claim to love in your username, “law” in our system of government is made by the legislative branch. Whether or not you think the current AUMF could constitutionally qualify as “war” for the purposes of the Third Amendment, there’s no legal justification for the president to actually do so.

        And even if there were such a law and you counted the AUMF as “war”, I think the intent behind the amendment was clearly to only allow it to the extent necessary to prosecute the war. Arguing that people must be forced to quarter troops because several thousand soldiers are deployed in a conflict several thousand miles away is pretty absurd.

        1. If our troops can die for 17 years based on the AUMF, then that sounds like war to me.

          Should a DoW have an end and be a document closer to the DoW during WWII? Yes. The Constitution does not require a certain form.

          I know you hate the Constitution, CaliTroll, but nothing you said refutes my citation of the 3rd Amendment.

  12. But what if Congress refuses to acquiesce to his demand for $5 billion in funding?

    No problem! Because thanks to the new trade agreement between US, Mexico and Canada, the US is going to be inundated with cash that can pay for the wall many times, which is the same as Mexico paying for it.

    If that makes sense to you, please explain it to Trump, because during the press conference, he simply didn’t explain how that works. Trade agreements don’t pay for shit.

    Also it suggest the obvious question: If the wall can be funded by trade agreement alone, then what in the world is the government shut down for? Nancy Pelosi can tell the president “You already said the trade agreement will pay for the wall, so why not do that and stop bothering us?”

    It’s not just the mendacities coming from his mouth, it’s the pedestrian and crass way that he does it. It seems he operates under the delusion that everyone he talks to must be an idiot.

  13. Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Its this part “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” but for military applications.

    1. TRUMPTARD HEADS ARE EXPLODING ALL DOWN THE PAGE! Scurrying like cockroaches
      Behold the Authoritarian Right. Puts it all in boldface … then lies about his own boldface!

      but for military applications.

      Wrong clause! (snort)
      Boldface for whiny Trumptards (will stay in denia

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

      Also fails grammar!!!

      Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left.
      Which is why they are less than 40% of Americans, combined … and shrinking faster
      Imagine getting your ass kicked, by …… A GIRL!
      Now we need to crush her, and move back toward liberty

      Bullshit and bluster FAIL for Trump. Why should work for his cult of snarling nobodies?

      SINGALONG: “another one bites … another one bites … another one bites THE DUST!”

      Scream on goobers. Your hero just shot himself.

        1. TRUMPTARD HEADS ARE EXPLODING ALL DOWN THE PAGE! Scurrying like cockroaches

          Fuck off SQRLSY

          I thought my name is Hihn! Make up your “mind” who I am!
          (He also cannot hold a consistent thought for even a singe day, just like Trump)

          1. “I thought my name is Hihn! Make up your “mind” who I am!”

            Lol Hihn doesn’t even understand how stupid that is.

          2. “I thought my name is Hihn! Make up your “mind” who I am!”

            I guess you forgot you did that same act with your Robert sockpuppet Hihn. Even the bolded section is the same.

            You are one stupid motherfucker.

        2. Okay, this one was funny. You’re still a mope though.

      1. You cannot read. You cannot write. You cannot think. You do not belong on Reason.

    2. I don’t believe he’s said anything about not compensating the owners.

      1. Would that make it any better? Why are we even discussing whether it’s legal. Who gives a shit? It is fucking wrong and anti-liberty.

        1. Why are we even discussing whether it’s legal?

          Because we aspire to be a nation of laws, not men, so it actually matters, when someone claims Trump can’t legally do something, if they’re right or wrong. Not just whether they dislike him doing it.

          Stopping foreig nationals from forcing their way into the country is as national defense as it gets, even if you think it’s bad policy.

          The law does actually permit eminent domain for that purpose, even if you think it’s bad policy.

          Eminent domain is constitutional, if compensation is paid.

          Now, if you want to drop the pretense that you actually care what is legal, go ahead. But as long as you’re pretending that your objection is that building the wall that way violates the law, the law matters.

      2. I dont think Trump said there would not be just compensation either.

        I also found your response to Weinermobile good too.

      3. “I don’t believe he’s said anything about not compensating the owners.”

        Then why does he need the “military” version of eminent domain? In a discussion about what he’s going to do if Congress won’t appropriate any money for wall-building?

  14. The usual conservatives would be clutching their pearls and shitting themselves if Obama / a progressive suggested using the federal govt forces to grab land from private citizens for a campaign promise. Will be fun to see them line up to piss on their principles for dear leader.

    Everyone should be a lot more concerned with how much “for the national defense” gets used for whatever a President wants. Tariffs are definitely a national security issue, right? Give the leader full power to do what he wants, because “for the national defense”.

    I think a lot of these conservatives are going to be right pissed at themselves when the pendulum swings to the uber-liberals, they get some power, and they decide what’s best for you is in “the national defense” because you let trump do what he wanted right?

    1. Re: ShotgunJimbo,

      Give the leader full power to do what he wants, because “for the national defense”.

      That reminds me of a couple of well known country leaders who justified their personal power grab by alluding to an existential threat to national security, one whose last name was Ch?vez, and I don’t mean C?sar.

    2. Everyone should be a lot more concerned with how much “for the national defense” gets used for whatever a President wants.

      I know, right? It is more than a little sad to see so many ‘libertarian’ boot-lickers around here defending stretching the meaning of the term ‘national defense’ to mean ‘whatever the President wants’.

      1. so many ‘libertarian’ boot-lickers around here

        Authoritarian Right =/= libertarian.

  15. Amusingly, eminent domain for a border wall might be the most constitutional use of that mechanism in decades.

    Assuming they pay for the land.

    1. Re: Bubba Jones,

      Amusingly, eminent domain for a border wall might be the most constitutional use of that mechanism in decades.

      Amusingly, you would be completely wrong. Eminent Domain is supposed to be invoked for PUBLIC USE (roadz!, pulbic skools for kudz to lern to reed & writ, etc.), not to build a monument to white Americans’ fear of “demographic changes foisted upon them”.

      1. I think monuments count.

      2. National defense is pretty “public use”, so far as I can see. It doesn’t mean it’s used by the public, but by the government. I mean, I don’t get to use the local Air Force base, but they could certainly use eminent domain to obtain land for one.

        1. for national defense to jibe, there needs to be an actual threat.

          1. What’s your address?

    2. Not just pay for the land but is has to be “just compensation”.

      Some jurisdictions use a 125% of Fair Market Value of the land for eminent domain.

      1. What is the fair market value of desert scrub land? I think it is considerably less than the cost of building the wall.

        1. Figuring FMV is the hard part.

        2. “What is the fair market value of desert scrub land?”

          The price at which a willing seller’s price is acceptable to a willing buyer.

  16. DESTROYED! By Nancy Pelosi kicking his authoritarian ass. The man with tiny … hands.
    Stomping his feet … PISSED that he was stripped of his power by a election rout.

    Inside every bully is … always … a pussy. He WANTS to be impeached. A REAL man would resign. This one cowers before a skinny blond.

    It’s like watching Nixon collapse …. also with belligerent bluster.
    (yawn)

      1. I’m here, unbowed, not intimidated… Just amused…

        I’m sorry I cannot help you. If anyone can, the genius-eminent psychologist Phillip Zimbardo, just MIGHT have a fighting chance… PLEASE go crawling back to him for more therapy, if you treasure your soul at ALL!

        1. Trumptard heads are EXPLODING! (Nothing inside!)

          How many Senate Republicans does it take to convict of impeachment? (smirk)

            1. How many Senate Republicans does it take to convict of impeachment? (smirk)

              1. (Hihn screennames in this thread)?2

                Now fuck off, nobody.

              2. Senate Republicans it takes to convict of impeachment = (Hihh screennames in this thread)

              3. Senate Republicans it takes to convict of impeachment = (Hihh screennames in this thread)

                1. Hey, Sniveling Coward,
                  How many Senate Republicans does it take to convict of impeachment? (smirk)

        2. “I’m here, unbowed, not intimidated… Just…” Hihn.

          1. How many Senate Republicans does it take to convict of impeachment? (smirk)

            1. About the number of your screennames in this thread.

              Now fuck off Mr. Irrelevant.

              1. Hey, Sniveling Coward,
                How many Senate Republicans does it take to convict of impeachment? (smirk)

                1. You are obviously a coward, insulting people remotely from a keyboard.

                  1. “You are obviously a coward, insulting people remotely from a keyboard.”

                    Irony alert!

  17. According to the Constitution, the Union government has limited delegated authority with regard to the borders of these USA – the rest of the authority is reserved to the sovereign states themselves.

    1. Look again, Sluggo

      1. Are you suggesting the Union government has undelegated authority?

        1. Donald Jay Grump is a dimwit.

    2. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
      The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

      As of 1808, the federal government can regulate immigration.

      1. “As of 1808, the federal government can regulate immigration.”

        Incorrect.

        As of 1808, the federal government can ATTEMPT TO regulate immigration.

  18. ” But defining building a wall on the southern border as an issue of national defense is a stretch.”

    That’s probably the stupidest thing I’ve read in Reason in a while, and the competition is massive. Building a wall along a border that has foreign nationals crossing it contrary to our law an national policy is about as definitionally a valid military activity as it gets.

    1. Brett,
      Then by your standard, would a penniless Guatemalan – no weapons, no military uniform, acting independently – crossing the border without permission, constitute an act of war?

    2. God you are a coward. You really are scared of foreigners that much? We have managed to survive a few centuries without the wall, I think we will make it okay.

    3. +1000 Brett

    4. “Building a wall along a border that has foreign nationals crossing it contrary to our law an national policy is about as definitionally a valid military activity as it gets.”

      Using military forces inside the United States for law enforcement purposes? Yeah, that’s a pro-liberty position to take.

      1. Keeping people from entering our country against our will, otherwise known as “invading”, is a bog standard military task.

  19. Oh, hell, that’s easy. To quote from THE LION IN WINTER, “It’s got my troops all over it, that MAKES it mine.”

  20. The “military version of eminent domain?” For a silly wall that flatters the backward and intolerant but has nothing to do with national security?

    There may be plenty of yahoos to fall for that among the general population, but good luck finding enough judges to make it work.

    Carry on, clingers. Without a wall, though. There will be no wall.

  21. “Libertarians” for foreign invasion and reverse colonialism.

    Not progressives at all…

  22. He doesn’t need to, does he? The federal government has a 60-foot easement (or “area of control”) along the border. It’s usually called the “Roosevelt Reservation” since it was established under Teddy Roosevelt.

      1. FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE!

        Unless authorized by Congress, a President’s proclamation does not have the force of law

        One more Trumptard blunder

  23. I am really sorry that I sold my border property 30 years ago. The Conservatives keep up their empty threats to revolt with arms. I spent 8 years as a from a NATO friend Navy UDT (before they called us SEALS) and still have the Kalashnikov I got in Vietnam as well as an FN-P90 I recently acquired,from a NATO friend, that I am more than qualified to use to protect my property from appropriation by any force.

  24. I haven’t read it recently, but I’m pretty sure the Constitution doesn’t differentiate between “military versions” and regular versions of eminent domain. All property owners are entitled to just compensation.

    1. That’s true, but nowhere has he said he won’t be paying compensation.

      1. I have no idea who “he” is. Trump. Nah he never pays from personal funds. Your money will do.

  25. An example of a military version of eminent domain might be commandeering a private vehicle of whatever sort – train, ship, plane.

    In a dramatization of Washington crossing the Delaware, the general orders some of his men to seize a boat dealer-renter’s inventory in order to get his men across the river before they are cut down by Redcoat/Hessian troops. This takes place in the early part of the drama.

    1. That was before the Constitution Trumptard.
      And you LIE about the event.

      (But Obama was indeed born in Kenya!)

      1. I didn’t vote in 2016. And I am only giving an example of what a military eminent domain might be. I oppose ALL eminent domain seizures, including Trump’s attempted ones on Vera Coking and Michael Forbes.

        Don’t know what you’re talking about when you say LIE. I was talking about a “dramatization” not the actual event.

        You appear to be intellectually challenged.

  26. At least in Texas, the wall will have to go quite a ways into the US, seizing lots of private ranch land and houses. The river flood plain shifts and washes out arroyos sometimes up to half a mile in during spring floods and hurricanes. This is not nice solid flat land. The few sections of fence they built along the river in my area were washed out beneath them in two months. You could literally bend over and walk beneath them. They were fixed by national guard and in another month were washed out again. This time the whole fence caved on one end. The seizures would be huge and very ugly. Texans don’t take kindly to DC politicians and/or soldiers coming in and taking their land. I have no doubt there would be at least a few standoffs.

    1. Might as well just cede your land back to Mexico, eh?

  27. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……

    http://www.geosalary.com

  28. His attempt to use eminent domain to build a casino parking lot by taking property from a widow was enough reason not to nominate him for president. Too bad people got swept up in the desire to elect a famous rich non-politician (like Swarzeneggar, Sonny Bono, Hogan, Reagan), and didn’t do their homework on why they crave power.

    He has zero respect for the property rights of others. Not to mention very few boundaries of any kind. He’s an invader.

    1. He beat Hillary even with that failed eminent domain attempt.

      1. Thank you for that up-to-the-minute news report.

  29. Ummm I support a generous immigration policy, but why don’t people realize one simple fact:

    Keeping people out of the country until we give them permission to enter the country is the entire point of having a military.

  30. Obviously, the “military version of eminent domain” is that the army will go into Mexico, and force the Mexicans to build the wall on Mexico’s side of the border. No pesky lawsuits, no Constitutional issues of any kind!

  31. In all seriousness, federal law does allow for military department secretaries to “acquire any interest in land” if “the acquisition is needed in the interest of national defense.” But defining building a wall on the southern border as an issue of national defense is a stretch.

    Defending the national border is a lot less of a stretch as an issue of national defense than patrolling some god-forsaken stretch of highway in Afghanistan, yet we spend billions on that.

    1. You are correct, we shouldn’t be wasting that money in Afghanistan either. Best to save the money in both places.

      1. You know, if I could have found someone to take the bet, I could have made money on your reply. As predictable as it is tiresome.

  32. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……

    http://www.geosalary.com

  33. The most enjoyable aspect of the border wall is slow motion realization by the globalist left that their long con game is ending.

    Trump is a world class wrecking ball that is completely upending their decades long war against the West and civilization writ large.

    The idea than an illiterate Guatemalan peasant has any role within a high-tech post industrial post agricultural society is beyond ridiculous.

    The real hilarity will begin when the anchor baby clause gets overturned and people start getting deported en mass. Especially when it happens and nothing bad happens afterwards. And living wages for blue collar workers rise and the crime rate drops.

    1. To get rid of the right to citizenship for citizens born here would take a constitutional ammendment. Just cuz Trump says he can overturn that with an executive order is ignorant bullshit. And I think an ammendment like that would have a hard time getting passed. I am not even against that kind of ammendment, but you need to live in reality. And the Left’s long con is not ending. Nor is the Right’s long con. Neither party cares about working class Americans. This increasing partisanship in our society is splitting up the middle, the moderates, the independents, the people like us. It is benifitting those bastards.

  34. “the military version of eminent domain”

    You know, like in the history books:

    https://www.history.com/ this-day-in-history/ germans-invade-poland

    You need to eliminate the spaces after the “/” cuz Reason don’t like “words that are too long”!

  35. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

  36. It is gratifying to see Trump troll the Leftist and watch them pull out their hair and gnash their teeth. MAGA!

  37. I think most of you are missing the point. Except those of you who are just bickering at each other; at least you make no bones about that. Even if you want the “wall” and I grant that national security does encompass border security, do we want the government continuing to expand its powers? Whether you like Dems or Repubs, the pendulum will swing and the other party will be in party soon enough and you will hate it. That’s the whole point of being Libertarian! I am for limited government and limited government spending, and I am very against Eminent Domain.

  38. Bad Idea. When is he and his supporters going to learn that they can’t just waltz in and build that border wall.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.