Welcome to those of you seeing this through Carnival of Maryland 11. This is the first of a series that will continue on Tuesdays and Fridays through August.
As many of you know, I still haven’t made up my mind regarding who I’m going to support for the GOP presidential nomination. So it’s high time I did it.
Most people have some pet issue that they base their support on. I’m definitely not a one-issue person in that my support isn’t based on a candidate being simply pro-life, pro-gun, anti-judicial activism, or wherever their passion lies. As frequent readers know, my issue base is much more broad and, while it’s generally considered conservative, I don’t subscribe to the portion of conservatism that advocates Constitutional amendments regarding flag burning, abortion, etc. Much as the recent immigration fight had its opponents (including myself) that advocated simply tightening enforcement of existing laws, by and large I’d like to see Congress and the federal government as a whole follow the Constitution they already have, with a few additions that I spoke about previously.
But the first part of my decision comes on the issue of eminent domain and property rights. This is how the game will be played:
Each issue is worth a certain number of points. In this case, eminent domain ranks 12th on my list of the most important issues so it’s worth just 5 points. Other issues will rank accordingly higher and be worth more points.
The points are not static. In this example I only found three candidates who had an explicit position on the eminent domain issue – thus only three get a score right now. But if I find out later about other candidates with a view on the subject I’ll amend the scores accordingly. This will also hold true if one or more do a John Kerry-style flip-flop.
And most importantly, if a supporter wants to pitch their guy and give me evidence to back up the statement they make, I’m open to changing scores. But like Ronald Reagan I’m going to “trust but verify.”
To make this an easier read, I’ll go by the following rule. Having perused all the major candidate websites today, some have their issues page as just one page with short descriptions and others do separate pages for each issue. Particularly when they get to the most important issues, it’ll be wise on my part to simply link to a page rather than make the articles much longer. So if there’s a separate page, I’ll post the link to follow and if not I’ll quote directly.
So here goes. The three candidates who get my initial score are all Republicans: Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. Gilmore has separately paged what he terms the “National Property Rights Initiative” and writes about it in Human Events; meanwhile, Hunter and Paul are more brief so I’ll reproduce their statements below.
Duncan Hunter:
Kelo property rights/eminent domain decision by the Supreme Court:
I am deeply concerned with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision greatly broadening local government’s use of eminent domain in Kelo vs. New London and believe it is important that Congress protect the property rights of private landowners and curb the government from excessive regulatory takings. It is for this reason that I voted in favor of expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion in the Kelo case.
Additionally, I cosponsored H.R. 3268 (Gingrey-GA), the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act of 2005, which abolished the capital gains tax on private property taken by the government through eminent domain. I also voted in favor of a legislative amendment Congressman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) offered to H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, prohibiting federal funding from being used to improve or construct infrastructure support on lands acquired through the use of eminent domain of private property for private development.
Ron Paul:
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
All three have written thoughtful pieces on the subject. But Gilmore’s plan had just a little bit too much extra bureaucracy and regulation to me, adding a Special Assistant, a Presidential Commission, and a mandate for the HUD Secretary. So it’s an effort but not done all that well, he’ll get 2 points.
Duncan Hunter has gotten behind some good common-sense legislation and properly points out that it is indeed up to Congress to take care of the problem. His approach is actually more proper (asking Congress to take care of the problem) than Ron Paul’s, although Paul does note correctly that federal agencies (which are under the purview of the executive branch as well) do play a role in overreaching their proper bounds. The only fault I’d find with Ron Paul is his use of the hackneyed “special interests” phrase. Thus I give Hunter the full 5 points and Paul 4 points.
Like the first inning of a ballgame, it’s too early to make predictions but all three of these guys got off to a good start. So the early standings through one post are:
- Hunter, 5 points.
- Paul, 4 points.
- Gilmore, 2 points.
- Brownback, no points.
- Giuliani, no points.
- Huckabee, no points.
- McCain, no points.
- Romney, no points.
- Tancredo, no points.
- F. Thompson, no points.
- T. Thompson, no points.
Of course, since no Democrat has that issue among the websites I looked through (generally I did a search for the word “Kelo” and the phrase “eniment domain”) no one got points. But judging from their liberal leanings and the known persuasion of most of those on the Supreme Court who voted for the defendant in Kelo v. New London, I doubt there were points to be had anyway.
And like I said, if you’re a supporter or work for a candidate and you can show me where I’m not finding something or interpreting incorrectly, by all means set me straight. I may have missed something on a website or a related blog.
In the meantime, on Tuesday I’m planning on moving up to the 11th most important issue, that being Second Amendment rights. I know we’ll get some points out of that subject!
Late note: Jim Gilmore dropped his bid on July 14th, so I have one less website to peruse now. That’s too bad, he was in the early running for my endorsement. He was a bit handicapped because of a late start and health issues (eye surgery). I wish him good luck with his future endeavors.
