Ok, so Crawford is not a question; it’s one word—-but the principles behind Crawford should be posed to judicial candidates and also to Texas Attorney General, Railroad Commissioner and Agriculture Commissioner candidates—“under what circumstances should any private corporation, foreign or not, be able to exercise eminent domain to seize private land for private profit?”
The case is The Crawford Family Farm Partnership v TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. and a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court was issued on January 7th, 2014.
From the Bowie County Citizens Journal:
“A ruling on Wednesday by the Texas Supreme Court was a huge victory for Northeast Texas landowner Julia Trigg Crawford and all of those who are standing with her in her battle to fight a Canadian company that has seized part of her family farm for a pipeline.
The high court’s ruling ordered TransCanada to submit information by Feb. 6, 2014 as the justices weigh arguments to hear the case regarding eminent domain abuse.
“…Crawford says her case has broad implications, because if she wins, TransCanada and other foreign oil companies will no longer be able to use eminent domain to seize land for their private profit without direct proof their pipeline is carrying Texan oil.”
We have Republican candidates campaigning across the state and our counties claiming to support private property land rights; last year it was learned completion of the hike and bike boondoggle in the City of Sugar Land required the confiscation of private land through eminent domain (yes that project’s for public use but the same principle of voter-sanctioned government seizure of private land still applies)–and I’ve been to Lord knows how many meetings attended by Republican voters applauding Republican candidates claiming to support property rights who principally believe government-forced confiscation of private land for another entity’s private gain is A-OK.
Ask the candidates—mentioned above—what they know about the Crawford case–the Texas Supreme Court could conceivably take this case on appeal and potentially rule on the fundamental rights of private land owners in the State of Texas.
The judicial races are the most important races.
I hope every Texan reads this.
Yvonne – that is a good question for RR Commission, Ag Commission and legislative candidates, but not for judicial candidates. Any judicial candidate that attempted to answer that question could be recused if a case involving eminent domain came into her or his court. Good judicial candidates would have to answer that they will follow the law as adopted by the legislature or as pronounced by the Supreme Court.
Bill,
Thank you for correctly noting that a judicial candidate could only give a response that wouldn’t answer the question. Yvonne’s statement in reply is also correct; even if a candidate for judge isn’t allowed to give an answer their response can at least demonstrate familiarity with the case and property rights issues generally.
I’d like to add another point. The Texarkana Court of Appeals, in ruling against the Crawfords, was attempting in good faith to act as “Conservative Jurists.” How can that be? Aren’t they taking away the Crawfords’ property rights, which we conservatives hold dear? The answer can be found in the following dicta the Texarkana Court noted prominently in the introduction to its opinion citing decisions of the Texas Supreme Court:
“Texas courts have recognized that the Legislature may delegate its power of eminent domain to nongovernmental entities. See Buffalo Bayou, Brazos & Colo. R.R. Co. v. Ferris, 26 Tex. 588, 588 (1863). The scope of the delegation of the government’s power of eminent domain rests entirely with the elected representatives of the people, the State Legislature. Imperial Irr. Co. v. Jayne, 104 Tex. 395, 417, 138 S.W. 575 (1911).”
Crawford Family Farm P’ship v, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP,409 S.W.3d 908, 908 (2013, pet. filed).
Conservatives believe that judges should not legislate from the bench and that they must stay within the limited powers given to them in the system of separation of powers our founders and the framers of the Constitution set out to protect us from tyranny. The Texarkana Court was saying, as clearly and as loudly as it is ethically allowed, two things:
1. “We are just judges and as such we have to follow the dictates of the legislature; if the laws enacted by the legislative branch allow TransCanada to use eminent domain then we can only step in to stop TransCanada if the legislature has exceeded the limits of the constitution. We might not like the law the legislature has fashioned, or believe the legislature should act to stop this, but we can’t legislate for them.” and
2. “We are an intermediate court and are bound by Texas Supreme Court precedent, which we believe binds us to affirm the trial court’s judgment against the Crawfords. We can’t ignore or change the Texas Supreme Court’s past opinions that apply here. Only the Supreme Court can and perhaps they should but that is not for our inferior appellate court to say (hint).”
A Conservative Jurist knows the limits of his/her authority and doesn’t step outside it. That’s for liberal activists judges. It is frustrating to be sure because many liberal judges (not all but way too many) often don’t have any qualms about usurping the roles of the other branches of government to advance liberal agendas.
Note (political and not legal): If the Crawfords prevail then isn’t Obama off the hook for not approving the pipeline?
Bill, Thanks as always. Your comment served to educate voters that is EXACTLY what the voter should receive as a response. Additionally, asking the question allows the judicial candidate to acknowledge if they’re even familiar with the case at hand by gauging their facial expressions.
If I asked that question…obviously not to a family court or criminal court judge…and they were not familiar with even the basic premise, I’d be curious as to their viability for the office.
Yvonne, had it been a for-profit utility company electrical transmission line carrying power from outside Texas into our state in order to address the impending problem with providing reliable power for the many new people expected to come to our state, would your position be the same?
Mr. Wilson.
Thank you for your question. I believe voters should vet every candidate, every bond or mobility project, every proposed Constitutional amendment, every construction project considered by State agencies, commissions for the issues that matter most to them. Mine happen to be issues of eminent domain abuse, property tax abuse & the manner, process with which the State of Texas imposes taxes and most importantly defense of every citizens First Amendment rights.
I believe it is immoral and not compassionate for government to forcibly confiscate from one for the purpose of giving to another.
Let’s go out and learn what the candidates believe! We’ve got elections coming up!
Yvonne, by your argument, I could put together a strip of land 400 miles long and 10 feet wide and stop every pipeline, road, power line, etc. All of those are required for our society to function, and there has to be a way to provide for their routing. The only real means we have for that is eminent domain. That process might need improvement, but without it, we will not grow our economy.
I am curious as to how you think government ought to be funded, if not by taxes. What do you think is wrong with how Texas taxes? Without an income tax, we are left with property or sales taxes, both of which are pretty regressive. The business margins tax is a joke, and still discriminates against capital intensive businesses in favor of lawyers, accountants, and other service providers.
Eminent domain is not a bad thing in itself. It is through that power that we have a interstate highway system that is the envy of every nation in the world. That system wouldn’t have been possible without the use of eminent domain. You and I agree that abuse of that power by government entities needs to be confronted at every point. The question of when the use of that power if for the public good and when it is an abuse of power, unfortunately, is a matter of opinion. Regardless of that, I stand shoulder to shoulder with you against the abuse of the power by government.
Thank you Mr. May for contributing to our desire to educate voters on issues of legitimate public debate. If we seek to criticize the “slates” there must be an alternative way to educate voters on the judicial races, the types of cases each court hears and the key cases, issues deliberated.