Donald J. Trump. Long a flamboyant figure in American life — as a real-estate developer and reality show host — Trump, 69, entered the race in June in unorthodox fashion. At a moment when Republican leaders hoped to repair relations with Latino voters, he seized on the issue of illegal immigration, accused those crossing the border from Mexico of "bringing drugs ... bringing crime. They're rapists." That hot-button issue with conservative voters grew hotter within weeks when an illegal immigrant was charged with the killing of a young San Franciscan named Kate Steinle.
Adam Jeffery | CNBC
Donald Trump speaks with CNBC's John Harwood at the Trump Grill in New York.
Three months later, Trump leads all rivals for the Republican nomination nationally and in key early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He has pledged to spend as much as $100 million of his multibillion dollar fortune on his campaign, freeing him of the need to solicit campaign donations. This week he laid out a bold — critics say budget-busting — plan to cut the top personal income tax rate to 25 percent and business tax rate to 15 percent.
But now his campaign faces stiffer challenges from two sources — the rise of fellow political outsiders Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, and more serious scrutiny from Republican primary voters as the choice of the party's eventual nominee draws closer. Trump sat down to discuss his campaign with me in Trump Grill, the restaurant in the lower level of Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan. What follows is a condensed, edited transcript of our conversation.
HARWOOD: You started your campaign saying a bunch of things that are not real. Obama and where he was born — that's not real. You know where he was born. You know that we're not going to deport 11 million people. Rates of illegal immigration have been declining, not going up
TRUMP: You tell me. Go ahead, tell me: Where was he born? I don't discuss it. Because when I discuss it, you don't want to get on to jobs and the other things.
A lot of people are better off staying in Mexico and various other countries than coming here because we're doing very poorly as a country. We'll see what happens. People have to be in this country legally. I've taken a strong stance that we have a country where we don't. From the Republican standpoint, I can tell you it's an issue that's very important.
You had the horrible situation with Kate — and many, many, many others. Thousands of others. Last week a woman was brutally murdered. A veteran, a 66-year-old veteran murdered and raped, sodomized, in California. There's many cases like that. It's become a tremendous crime wave.
HARWOOD: Have you seen "The Jinx"? The charges against Robert Durst? That's not evidence that real estate developers are having a crime wave.
TRUMP: I know the family.
No, I don't say everybody. But there is a big problem and there is a crime problem. Certainly not everybody, and certainly not most, or even a big percentage. But it is a substantial percentage and there is tremendous crime.
HARWOOD: Jeb told me the other day that Trump's strategy is to say things over and over, loudly, and if he does, he can make people think things that are not true, are true. What do you say to that?
TRUMP: Well I haven't heard the statement. I think he's a very nice person, and he's doing very poorly. He maybe will do better. He's going to spend a lot of money that comes from friends of mine that watch your show — the hedge fund guys and the Wall Street guys — so I don't know. I think when people see commercials, and they know where they're coming from, they maybe look at it differently.
"Well, their leaders are incompetent. In some cases, stupid, but certainly incompetent. You just have to look at what's happening with our country. We allow China to devalue their currency constantly. We allow Japan to devalue — they just did a big devaluation. We allow Mexico to take so many of our companies. They're killing us economically."-Donald Trump
HARWOOD: You've made the argument that the reason average people in America are feeling economic strain is because their leaders are stupid. Isn't that a comic-book version of the economic story? The world has changed.
TRUMP: Well, their leaders are incompetent. In some cases, stupid, but certainly incompetent. You just have to look at what's happening with our country. We allow China to devalue their currency constantly. We allow Japan to devalue — they just did a big devaluation. We allow Mexico to take so many of our companies. They're killing us economically. China, if you look at what happened just recently — they did increase for a little period of time, but they are devaluing big league. I can tell you, I have many friends in the manufacturing business, and it makes it almost impossible for them to compete.
The other thing people don't know about China — they charge massive taxes which they usually call tariffs when you want to sell things in China. We don't charge them, but they charge us. So it's a very unfair situation. I know that the world is a different place, but countries are taking advantage of us, big league.
HARWOOD: What would you say to someone who said — given the emphasis that you've had on immigration, crime, the scary pictures of illegal immigrations, and the talk about China, Mexico, Japan taking jobs away — that the core idea of your campaign is appealing to fearful, anxious white Americans and encouraging the belief that their problems are because of people who look different?
TRUMP: No, I don't think so. I don't want it to be and I don't think it is.
You know, my audiences are very — many, many blacks. I had a poll come out the other day where I was 25 percent approval rating from the blacks as a Republican, which is the highest they've ever recorded. In fact they said if the election were held and you got 25 percent of the black vote like in this poll, the election's over — you win. So, I mean, I see it in my audiences. I have tremendous numbers of Hispanics in my audiences. These are people that are here legally and they don't want people pouring across the border.
HARWOOD: Your answer to policy questions, how do you pay for this, how are you going to do that, is: "I'm Trump. I'm good. I'm the best. I will get it done." Who's your model? We don't have Superman presidents.
TRUMP: No, but we will if you have Trump. You watch. We're going to have a president that will not allow our country to be taken advantage of, and we're going to have a president that's not going to make stupid deals. I think Ronald Reagan was a very good president.
HARWOOD: Reagan was rooted in a political movement, an ideological movement, for decades. What are you rooted in?
TRUMP: I think I have the movement going on. When I go to Dallas and sell 20,000 seats, when I go to Mobile, Alabama, and we have 35,000 people, when I go to New Hampshire and we have thousands of people, when I go to Iowa we have packed houses.
I mean, there's something going on, John. It's a movement of common sense. It's a movement that we don't want to see our country being ripped off by everybody, and my theme is, "Make America Great Again." That movement is happening.
HARWOOD: Did you see what Jeb said about your tax plan? He suggested that you copied his, and just lowered the rates a little bit. But he said you should have tried a little fiscal responsibility. Jeb acknowledged that his plan would add at least $1 trillion over 10 years to the deficit. Yours is bigger.
TRUMP: I don't acknowledge that because I think our economy will take off like a rocket ship under my plan. My plan is much more dynamic than his plan. My plan lowers the business tax much more than Jeb's does. I think it's going to be much more inspiring. A lot more jobs are going to be created with my plan than Jeb's plan.
HARWOOD: Let's assume you get elected, and you get in and discover that all of these problems are much more difficult. What do you say to those people who vote for you who say, "Hey wait a minute, I thought you were the Wizard of Oz?"
TRUMP: You do admit I'm leading in all the polls? I'm a problem solver. I will not disappoint those people. I will not find that. I know how to solve problems. I will make even you proud to be an American again.
"Well, I'm not a masochist. Right now I'm leading every poll, and in most cases big. That's good. If that changed, if I was like some of these people at 1 percent and 2 percent, there's no reason to continue forward. If I fell behind badly, I would certainly get out."-Donald Trump
HARWOOD: If you face the prospect of losing primaries, and you're not winning anymore, would you decide to step away at that point?
TRUMP: Well, I'm not a masochist. Right now I'm leading every poll, and in most cases big. That's good. If that changed, if I was like some of these people at 1 percent and 2 percent, there's no reason to continue forward. If I fell behind badly, I would certainly get out.
I'm in this for the long haul. That doesn't mean someday I don't wake up and I say, "Wow, I'm really tanking." Well, if I tank, sure, I go back to the business. Why wouldn't I?
But all the discussions that I read about it say that the SC approved of using Eminent Domain to take private property and to then give the confiscated property to another private individual. I have yet to read where anyone has claimed that is not the case.
If it is true, I do not think that is proper.
If you can refute that, please do.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
But all the discussions that I read about it say that the SC approved of using Eminent Domain to take private property and to then give the confiscated property to another private individual.
Did these "discussions" say WHO was approved to use "Eminent Domain to take private property and to then give the confiscated property to another private individual"?
The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]
Correct. Kelo allows only a government entity to take property and sell it to a private developer.
Some people found this objectionable and pressured their lawmakers to pass legislation forbidding this process. So far, 42 state have laws against this practice.
" Here is a tip: State eminent domain powers preexisted the Constitution. States delegated power to the Federal government, not the other way around. "
Well, no shit Sherlock!
My bottom line position is I do not think governments should use eminent domain to take private property and then transfer it to another private person.
I think it is OK to establish a project for public use, like a military base, highways, etc. That was NOT the case in KELO. Therefore, I disagree with Trump on that, since he thinks it is OK.
BTW, I agree with his position on immigration, and securing the southern border, and his position on trade !
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
My bottom line position is I do not think governments should use eminent domain to take private property and then transfer it to another private person.
So the Supreme Court should base its decisions on your feelz, rather than the Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up.
What if he was against Kelo? There's nothing he could do about it. "
Well, that is true. However, it is indicative of his mindset. And I still disagree with the Kelo decision. It is contrary to the idea of limited government.
Maybe you like it, I do not know.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
So the Supreme Court could address the case and controversy.
You should try reading the Constitution someday. I would suggest you also read the decision, but we both know that you never will. Ignorance becomes you.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Did these "discussions" say WHO was approved to use "Eminent Domain to take private property "
Near as I remember, it was some town in New England.
It was a small town in New Hampshire where David Souter, the homo supreme court justice appointed by Poppy Bush lives.
IIRC,a developer wanted to put in a shopping center,and the town condemned his land and sold it to the developer,claiming it was in the public interest because it would increase the tax base and bring in new jobs.
The case was taken to the Supreme Court,and damned if the commies there didn't agree.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
My bottom line position is I do not think governments should use eminent domain to take private property and then transfer it to another private person.
You don't really think any of our very honorable political creatures or judges would take cash payoffs for making this happen,do you?
If so,I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED,I TELL YA!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Thanks Fred. I could not remember the details, but was sure about the general gist.
I remember it as being David Souter's home town,and he was one of the ones that ruled in favor of the city confiscating and selling the property.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The City of New London is not the federal government.
So what? Does that mean they can legally ignore the Constitution and violate the RIGHTS of the people that live in that city?
Maybe while they are at it,they can pimp out the wives and daughters of the people that live there to help fatten up their treasury?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Does that mean they can legally ignore the Constitution
The Constitution is not the source of state eminent domain powers. You're ignoring the language, original intent, and historical application of the Constitution, either through ignorance of it or contempt for it. Or both.
The Constitution is not the source of state eminent domain powers.
Kelo involved an eminent domain taking pursuant to Connecticut state law. The U.S. Supreme Court only had jurisdiction to determine if the taking had violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that over a century of case law confirmed that there was no constitutional violation. The Supreme Court explicitly explained that any state could legislate to restrict its exercise of the takings power.
Kelo v. New London, 545 US 469, 472 (2005) (footnotes omitted)
Opinion of the Court
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.” 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 A. 2d 500, 507 (2004). In assembling the land needed for this project, the city’s development agent has purchased property from willing sellers and proposes to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation. The question presented is whether the city’s proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
[...]
Kelo at 489-90: (citations omitted)
In affirming the City’s authority to take petitioners’ properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a “public use” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is affirmed.
Sec. 48-6. Time limits for municipal corporations to take real property. Taking of property in neighborhood revitalization zones.(a) Any municipal corporation having the right to purchase real property for its municipal purposes which has, in accordance with its charter or the general statutes, voted to purchase the same shall have power to take or acquire such real property, within the corporate limits of such municipal corporation, and if such municipal corporation cannot agree with any owner upon the amount to be paid for any real property thus taken, it shall proceed in the manner provided by section 48-12 within six months after such vote or such vote shall be void.
(b) In the case of acquisition by a redevelopment agency of real property located in a redevelopment area, except as provided in sections 8-127a, 8-193 and 32-224, the time for acquisition may be extended by the legislative body upon request of the redevelopment agency, provided the owner of the real property consents to such request.
(c) In accordance with the policy established in section 7-603, any municipal corporation may take property which is located within the boundaries of a neighborhood revitalization zone identified in a strategic plan adopted pursuant to sections 7-601 and 7-602. The acquisition of such property shall proceed in the manner provided in sections 8-128 to 8-133, inclusive, and 48-12.
(1949 Rev., S. 7179; 1959, P.A. 152, S. 64; 1961, P.A. 294; 1971, P.A. 198; P.A. 83-587, S. 58, 96; P.A. 91-398, S. 3, 7; P.A. 95-340, S. 5; P.A. 07-141, S. 20.)
History: 1959 act deleted “concerning the condemnation of land for the site of county buildings” following reference to Sec. 48-12, county government having been abolished by the act; 1961 act added reference to powers conferred by the general statutes, imposed six-month deadline for taking action under Sec. 48-12 and specified that unless such action is taken the vote shall be void; 1971 act clarified six-month deadline for taking action by rephrasing provision; P.A. 83-587 made a technical amendment; P.A. 91-398 designated existing language as Subsec. (a), substituted the term “real property” for “real estate” in Subsec. (a) and added Subsec. (b) regarding acquisition by a redevelopment agency of real property located in a redevelopment area; P.A. 95-340 added Subsec. (c) re taking of property located within neighborhood revitalization zones; P.A. 07-141 amended Subsec. (b) to add “except as provided in sections 8-127a, 8-193 and 32-224”, effective June 25, 2007, and applicable to property acquired on or after that date.
Cited. 100 C. 411. Challenge of authority’s decision must be by procedures under Sec. 48-12. 154 C. 446. Cited. 186 C. 229.
Cited. 23 CA 554; 32 CA 611. 6-month time limitation in Subsec. (a) applies only to condemnation proceedings and not to voluntary sales. 94 CA 364. Where referendum question stated that property proposed to be acquired by eminent domain by municipality for a school project would also be used for open space and general government, provisions of section requiring commencement of compensation process within 6 months of referendum apply. 103 CA 369.
Establishment of an airport by a town is clearly one of its municipal purposes and proceedings to condemn for such are brought under this section and Sec. 48-12. 9 CS 317. Cited. 20 CS 422.
The Constitution is not the source of state eminent domain powers.
Duhhhh!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."
Exactly! And just as misterwhite already noted, most states have enacted such additional restrictions post-Kelo. The duhhhhlards among us prefer judicial legislation and centralized power to republican forms of state and local governments.
You ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer,are you?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
"The U.S. Supreme Court only had jurisdiction to determine if the taking had violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
More correctly, the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to determine if the state taking had violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In a sane, constitutional world, the U.S. Supreme Court would have rejected the case since the 5th amendment, as written, only applies to federal takings.
But, thanks to the due process clause of the 14th amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the fifth amendment also applies to the states and THEY ALONE will decide what it means.
In a sane, constitutional world, the U.S. Supreme Court would have rejected the case since the 5th amendment, as written, only applies to federal takings.
Yep. And you'll notice that the so-called "Constitutional conservatives" on the court leaped at the opportunity in this case to extend the "incorporation" process even further. At this point, there do not appear to be any USSC justices concerned with preserving our Constitution. Even Scalia embraced the noxious "substantive due process" doctrine as a tool for policy making from the bench.
And you'll notice that the so-called "Constitutional conservatives" on the court leaped at the opportunity in this case to extend the "incorporation" process even further. At this point, there do not appear to be any USSC justices concerned with preserving our Constitution. Even Scalia embraced the noxious "substantive due process" doctrine as a tool for policy making from the bench.
Could you please identify the comments (or their location) to which you refer?
Scalia did not file an opinion himself, but he did join the dissenting opinion of Justice O'Connor (545 US 494) (along with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas). Justice Thomas (545 US 505) also filed a separate dissenting opinion.
The Court issued a 5-4 majority opinion (545 US 469) written by Justice Stevens, and joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. Note however, Kennedy also filed his own concurring opinion (545 US 490).
"Kelo v. New London." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Oct 21, 2015.
Facts of the case
New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.
Question
Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy?
Conclusion
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"
Could you please identify the comments (or their location) to which you refer?
See McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020.
I join the Court’s opinion. Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.”
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul