| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| House Registers Strong Disapproval of Supreme Court Ruling | |
| 2005-07-01 | |
| (CNSNews.com) - The House of Representatives can't undo a troubling Supreme Court ruling, but it can -- and did -- send a message to the states. On Thursday, the House voted 365-33 to condemn the court's Kelo v. City of New London ruling that allows the government to take private property for "economic development." Private homes may be turned over to private commercial developers with "just compensation" -- even if homeowners object, the court said. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically states that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The court's ruling expands the concept of eminent domain beyond "public use." The resolution (H. Res. 340) expressing lawmakers' disapproval of the Kelo ruling was sponsored by Rep. Phil Gingry (R-Ga.), and one lawmaker called it a first step toward restoring basic private property rights. "The unchangeable principle of politics, morality, and common sense is that what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours," Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said. "What the Court decided last week was that what's mine is not really mine, and what's yours is not really yours -- that, in fact, private property only exists as a political expedient, a psychological contrivance wholly subject to the government's whims." A number of critics, including Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, have warned that the Kelo decision will leave the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities most vulnerable to losing property to the government, and DeLay agreed: "Those people with the least economic and political power -- with the least means to fight back and the most need for government protection of their God-given rights -- have been told by the Supreme Court that while property rights are sacred, some people's property rights are more sacred than others'." "It is not a debatable ideological overreach, but a universally deplorable assault of the rights of man," DeLay said. "The Court's Kelo decision will go down in history as a travesty," he concluded. In addition to the resolution, legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to limit federal funding for cities and municipalities that use eminent domain to seize property for economic development. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) introduced the House bill, and he said he expects the House Judiciary Committee to consider it later this year. "To give legislative force to this resolution, today I introduced H.R. 3135, the "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. This bipartisan bill will help restore the property rights of all Americans that the Supreme Court took away last week," Sensenbrenner said. Rep. John Conyners, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, is the lead Democratic cosponsor, and 64 lawmakers already have pledged their support, Sensenbrenner said. Like a bill introduced last week in the U.S. Senate, the House bill would prevent the federal government from using economic development as a justification for taking privately owned property. It also would prohibit any state or municipality from doing so whenever federal funds are involved with the project for which eminent domain authority is exercised. "American taxpayers should not be forced to contribute in any way to the abuse of government power," Sensenbrenner said. He noted that farmers, ranchers, and religious organizations all are threatened by the Kelo ruling, which might allow developers to seize their property for economic development. Sensenbrenner said his bill -- H.R. 3135 - will "assure the American people that we will not allow churches, homes, farms, and other private property to be bulldozed in abusive land grabs that solely benefit private individuals whose only claim to that land is that their greater wealth will increase tax revenues."
| |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #11 waiting mode - Ginsburg and Stevens are soon to retire or die |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-01 23:23 |
| #10 If the House really wanted to show its disapproval, then don't pass some stupid resolution. Write up articles of impeachment. Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Kennedy have all violated their oaths of office. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-07-01 23:08 |
| #9 um. can't type __ sorry Preview is my friend.... preview is my friend ... |
| Posted by: Javigum Thulet6891 2005-07-01 16:48 |
| #8 Absolute truth is defined a 5-to-4 decision in the Supreme Court; I might be inclined toward a rule that required a 6-3 or 7-2 margin; if there's that much difference of opinion, let the current conditions stand. Or perhaps sequester the old farts without a potty brerak until they do come to an agreement like a regular jury trial and no goddam hung juries allowed. |
| Posted by: Claper Choluter8856 2005-07-01 16:44 |
| #7 Feel free to make a non-denominational reaffirmation to your higher power or connection with your secular inner-tranquility. /filed that thar one >:Ã |
| Posted by: Jolurong Flise2277 2005-07-01 12:54 |
| #6 Current 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. My proposal for the 28th Amendment: Private property shall not be taken by the United States nor by the several states for public use, for which compelling evidence shall be made, without just compensation, nor shall the United States nor the several states take private property for the purpose of transfer to another private party. Compelling evidence is building a road, creating a public park, etc. No transfers to another private party means that NONE of the current nonsense about seizing land for transfer to a developer shall be permitted. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-07-01 12:06 |
| #5 Suprise..Suprise! (D)House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was one of 189 that voted against the bill. She criticized it as follows. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decsion of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decsion of the Supreme Court." Lets Pray for once she is correct in her assesment. Whoops..did I say pray..I meant...Feel free to make a non-denominational reaffirmation to your higher power or connection with your secular inner-tranquility. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-07-01 11:48 |
| #4 No judicialism without representation! Has a nice ring to it. Thanks for the idea .com! |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-07-01 11:30 |
| #3 3 observations... 1) Banning the use of Federal funds in projects where this new eminent domain law (that's what it is, new law) is employed won't do diddley-squat. The vast majority of these things will be of the variety we saw in the Texas article - local grabs for local gain. Conyers, a professional onanist, is just jerking off for his minions and sycophants. 2) Withholding Federal funds, generically, from Govt entities which employ the new law will likely have an effect - almost every Govt entity is getting some of your tax dollars for some wank-o-matic bullshit social(ist) program or another. So Sensenbrenner's bill has a few teeth, anyway. 3) This proves the point that this SCOTUS ruling is NOT business as usual and is, indeed, a serious new rights grab by a socialist-leaning SCOTUS. Since the only real cure is a Constitutional Amendment, I'd say that they should go ahead and get started... but I'd recommend 2 Amendments... One to reverse this insane ruling and restore eminent domain to its 200 yr old traditional meaning. A second to create a rational and simple transparent mechanism for removal of jurists at any level who do not accept the Constitution of the US, as currently amended, or find themselves too restricted by Federal, State, or local law and feel free to wander about the landscape devising law from personal whim and prejudice. Perhaps that means direct election of all jurists and fixed terms. Perhaps it means installing nice tall lampposts outside each courtroom. Whatever it takes to stop judicial activism without accountability. Note that this is no different from "No taxation without representation" - and that little notion was the cause of the first American Revolution. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-01 11:14 |
| #2 Oooooooooooooh! That's awefull strong rhetoric for forked tongued, spineless, subverters of all that is good and decent |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-07-01 10:31 |
| #1 ...H.R. 3135 - will "assure the American people... They can assure me all they want. Until I see some firm, non-loophole laws coming through or some justices swinging from a tree, I ain't gonna feel assured. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-07-01 09:05 |