Posted on 06/28/2005 11:31:22 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 28, 2005
(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.
I think that the whole uproar is that everyone knows that local municipalities cannot be trusted. They are money grubbing scum that look at nothing else but raising their tax bases.
I love it how some developer has already filed to take Souters house to build a hotel, LOL.
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the ping.
I have the feeling that this ruling will someday become null and void. Really sickening as far as I am concerned.
Think about having the wrong people in government and what they could do -- We could be just like China with the government owning most of the land/all of the land.
Agreed. It's good to see that 5 States have started to work on restoring ED protections to property owners; FL, TX, MO, VA, and CT, home State of New London and Kelo.
I also support a constitutional amendment voiding this decision.
They are money grubbing scum that look at nothing else but raising their tax bases.
Indeed. This puts the property owner in the same position as a sheep among wolves, voting on what to have for dinner.
...if federal funds were used AND if the transfer was for purposed of economic development rather than public use.... well that just warms me up ALL over. This only restricts FEDERALLY funded smack downs. If we are going to amend the amended amendment (think about how stupid we are) to try and keep others from doing the same.... then we should also try and define it so that EVEN LAWYERS AND POLITICIANS GET IT = It is now and forever forbidden for government to ever, for whatsoever reason your wee brains might fart, to take property from one individual and give it to another individual--PERIOD.
We no longer have federal judges, we have feral judges and it is time for a RED HOT and BLUE BBQ!!!!
I disagree, homosexuality dealt with personal freedom, and gas prices go up and down. But when government comes to take your home at the barrel of a gun, 'indifference' is the last thing on your mind.
I wrote, and faxed, a letter to all of the congressmen and the two senators of Indiana, as well as Bush and Cheney, demanding this same thing. These 5 should be impeached.
Needless to say, I haven't heard back from any of them. Don't expect to either.
We should find some common ground, and work together on those issues. Then we can go back to fighting over the stuff we disagree about. They keep us divided, and they'll keep us down.
DUmmies might be a threat, but at this moment they're no longer the *greatest* threat to our freedoms. Time to focus on the real enemy.
GOOD one! Thanks!
While we wait, should a local government seize our property, what is your remedy or prescription for dealing with it? It seems there is only one option left....the same option as Concord.
RE: "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."
Anybody know...Would this decision then, by logical extension, ALSO apply to properties such as the 'Headlands Forest'...??? ...and/or other such 'protected' properties which are currently 'owned' by "non-profit" (NGO, 'green' conservatorship-type, yet none-the-less 'private') entities???
I'd certainly think that getting the forest-products industry started up again in America's Northwest might well "...boost the (local) community's (communities') economic development and its (their) tax base(s)."
Just curious. Thanks.
It is too often not the case.
Smartass. LOL
Instead of "what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander," instead, the Gander is getting the Goose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.