You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling
2005-06-28
(CNSNews.com) - Although the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments ruling dominated Monday's headlines, a property rights ruling handed down last week still has many Americans shaking their heads -- including some lawmakers, who plan to do something about it. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has introduced a bill, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, in response to last week's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London .
The Supreme Court ruled that the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen -- if the transfer would boost the community's economic development and its tax base. The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.
"It is appropriate for Congress to take action...to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said. "This legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use,' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment," Cornyn said. "Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development." Cornyn's legislation would clarify that 'public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.
In remarks on the Senate floor Monday, Cornyn said the protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure is "a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders." He noted that the Fifth Amendment specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment, he emphasized, permits government to seize private property only "for public use."
Cornyn called the Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, ruling in Kelo v. City of New London an "alarming decision" that should prompt lawmakers to take action. "The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development," Cornyn said. "In the aftermath of Kelo, we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005."
Cornyn also said the Supreme Court's Kelo decision partly vindicates those who supported the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. "That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, Cornyn said, "because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
Sen. Cornyn currently chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and in the last Congress he was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee. A former Texas Supreme Court justice, Texas attorney general, and Bexar County District judge, Cornyn is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee.
Sounds like he could be a good future choice for the Supremes.
Posted by:Steve

#7  Even better, why not take over some land owned by the Nature Conservatory or someone like that so we can explore for oil? Energy independence is certainly a public benefit.
Posted by: Jackal   2005-06-28 19:01  

#6  They'll get concerned enough when the bullets start flying.
Posted by: Secret Master   2005-06-28 17:57  

#5  Just remember the Socialist left believes that there is no personal property, it all belongs to the state. People are just granted trust of the land till their betters have use of it. Don't expect the Left to be too concerned about all this.
Posted by: Omise Sholuting9208   2005-06-28 14:21  

#4  Or they just make new Wal-mart owned chain called "Booze-Mart".
Posted by: Charles   2005-06-28 13:12  

#3  You are thinking of Uncle Teds "Private Stock" it just looks like an emporium. I think they should confiscate the compound and put up a Super Walmart and a new office building for Haliburton.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-06-28 13:11  

#2  I thought the Kennedy Compound already was a Liquor Emporium.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-06-28 12:58  

#1  If there is a Conservative out there that has the power we can turn this around and on it's ear. Pick any one of the LLL politicians and seize their luxury home for the "good of the public." Can you imagine Mitt Romney grabbing the Kennedy compound with the intent of making a mall, amusement, park, or Liquor emporium. I bet that the Kelo ruling would fast become a distant memory.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-06-28 12:52  

00:00