Posted on 07/06/2005 8:36:39 PM PDT by Founding Father
The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.
---snip---
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Bump. Thanks for this post. For thsoe of us who are deeply condcerned with proeptction of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Consitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply ciritcal of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme ct. decisons when they were both on that ct. and he has been quoted as being sharply crticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, inclduing being qu0oted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.
Someone needs to take Pelosi's house.
"A fact sheet said under the bill the locality or state would "lose any federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the property would be taken for.""
Out of curiosity, why are federal funds being spent on this type of project anyway?
BTTT
I really hate to have to point this out to you, considering what you do for a living, but there already IS a Constitutional amendment forbidding this. It's called the Fifth Amendment, and it's about halfway down the Bill of Rights, between the 2nd and 10th Amendments, both of which you, and this Supreme Court, also obviously have never noticed.
And just to clear up for you the difference between God and a Supreme Court Justice: You can't tar-and-feather God.
Any further confusion, feel free to call me.
Right on the money!
Query; do you suppose she could pass the test necessary to become a citizen of The United States?
Crucifixion, that's another story.
She would care if God spoke?
Think of all the homeless who'd end up in San Jose. Oh, my the humanity!!!!!
Dear Ms Pelosi,
Since you think so highly of the Constitution, maybe you can point out exactly where in the Constitution it states that the US federal government is supposed to provide economic support for state economic development. It seems to me that since that sort of spending is NOT authorized by the Constitution, then if Congress withholds dollars from the states for any reason, that is a Constitutional action, and in fact, is required by all who took that oath you mentioned!
Mark
That's saying alot! But there are alot of CA politicians who are sent to Washington, DC who are embarrassments! Remember, this is the same state that gave us Maxine Waters!
Mark
This is official notification that this line has been stolen and will be used over and over again in conversations. Feel free to bill me for the use. My credit ratings are in shambles, and my house if falling down... Sue me!
Mark
lol!!!
The engine's runnin' but ain't nobody driving
Translation: Not overly-intelligent.
Ooops, sorry Mark it was for Nancy P!!!!!!
Holy shirt, this post is a twofer. A Pelosi alert AND a Ratner alert. Yes, those Ratners.
Ratner is also involved in that stupid "freedom museum" at Ground Zero, ain't he?
This is so sad. This is not the America I love. She's slowly disappearing and that makes me angry and very, very sad. I weep for my nation as I knew her.
Ah! Thanks. And I guess I've always just assumed it was just short for "tactic".
This kinda reminds me of when I found out it actually was "Duck tape" and not really "Duct tape".
What should be noted by all citizens is the fact that ALL Supreme Court judges consitered 'liberal', voted to legalize public theft of private property and against the US Constitutions 5th amendment, and ALL Supreme Court judges consitered 'conservative' voted against it and to uphold the Constitution.
Does anyone still believe that liberals aren't in fact actually Socialists who believe in government-uber-alles? Me thinks the emperor has been exosed as having no clothes.
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.