Darrell Castle

Strongly agree

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

The Constitution Party would likely agree with this answer, as they strongly support private property rights and limited government intervention. However, they may acknowledge that there could be some rare cases where eminent domain is necessary for public use. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

The Constitution Party would likely agree with this answer, as they generally oppose government seizure of private property. However, this answer does not provide any nuance or exceptions for rare cases of public use. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency

The Constitution Party might somewhat agree with this answer, as it limits government seizure of private property to extreme cases of national emergency. However, the party generally prefers stronger protections for private property rights. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects

The Constitution Party might somewhat agree with this answer, as it limits the government's ability to seize private property for private projects. However, the party generally advocates for even stronger protections of private property rights. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community

The Constitution Party might slightly agree with this answer, as it emphasizes fair compensation and community benefits. However, the party generally prefers stronger protections for private property rights and limited government intervention. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Neutral

Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price

The Constitution Party might be neutral on this answer, as it does provide for compensation above fair market price, but it still allows for government seizure of private property, which the party generally opposes. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No, unless it is for an oil pipeline project

The Constitution Party would likely disagree with this answer because it is too specific and seems to favor one industry (oil pipelines) over others. The party generally supports limited government intervention in private property rights. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

The Constitution Party would likely disagree with this answer, as they strongly support private property rights and limited government intervention. This answer does not provide any limitations or conditions for government seizure of private property. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.