House to Vote on Eminent Domain Measure!

[Beethoven]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5390696,00.html


House to Vote on Eminent Domain Measure


Thursday November 3, 2005 8:31 PM

By JIM ABRAMS

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Charging that the Supreme Court has undermined one of the pillars of American society - the sanctity of the home - the House considered a bill to block court-sanctioned seizings of private property for use by developers.

The bill, headed toward easy passage with bipartisan support Thursday, would withhold federal funds from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from a broad spectrum of private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups which said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's ``takings clause'' which provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public use.

The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial use.

With this ``infamous'' decision, said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., ``homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and threatened by the government wrecking ball.''

``For a country founded on property rights, this is a terrible blow,'' said the House's third-ranked Republican, Deborah Pryce of Ohio.

The legislation is the latest, and most far-reaching, of several congressional responses to the court ruling. The House previously passed a measure to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on land seized for private development, and the Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill applying similar restrictions.

About half the states are also considering changes in their laws to prevent takings for private use.

The Bush administration, in a statement, backed the House bill, saying that ``private property rights are the bedrock of the nation's economy and enjoy constitutionally protected status. They should also receive an appropriate level of protection by the federal government.''

The bill before the House would cut off for two years all federal economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for a taking. It also bars the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.

``By subjecting all projects to penalties, we are removing a loophole that localities can exploit by playing a 'shell game' with projects,'' said Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, a chief sponsor.

Eminent domain, the right of government to take property for public use, is typically used for projects that benefit an entire community, such as highways, airports or schools.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Kelo, said in an August speech that the ruling was legally correct because the high court has ``always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals.''

Several lawmakers who opposed the House bill said eminent domain has long been used by local governments for economic development projects such as the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, the cleaning up of Times Square and the building of a baseball stadium in Houston.

^---

The bill is H.R. 4128

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

 

[Henry Bowman]

I don't like this "withhold funds" tactic. Congress has the power to impose restrictions on government (including state governments) that are more restrictive than the Constitution. Such laws, however, are subject to repeal my majority vote, unlike a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Fly320s]

The bill, headed toward easy passage with bipartisan support Thursday, would withhold federal funds from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.

I agree with you, Henry.

This is the Fed's way of weasling out of actually having to show some backbone. I predict that if this bill becomes law and another Kelo-type case comes around (and one will), that the federal government will only withhold funds equal to the value of the property, not equal to the revenue the newly developed property will generate for the local government.

Why doesn't the bill prohibit such acts outright? Because the would be a limit on government power, which as we all know, just can't be allowed to happen. :banghead:

 

[Zundfolge]

Why doesn't the bill prohibit such acts outright? Because the would be a limit on government power, which as we all know, just can't be allowed to happen. :banghead:

The bill does ban the Fed.Gov from taking land for development so thats a good thing.

I suspect the bill is written this way to insure its passage ... it wouldn't have "bipartasian support" if it was as strict as we'd like it.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Why doesn't the bill prohibit such acts outright? Because the would be a limit on government power, which as we all know, just can't be allowed to happen.

We could make it happen if we were so inclined.

 

[gc70]

Regardless of the results, I am absolutely opposed to the federal government practicing extortion against the states.

 

[DRZinn]

Even to protect rights? How far you wanna go with that?

 

[Kurush]

Wow, they're going to pass a law. Maybe they should amend the constitution too. They could add "... and we really mean it!" to the part where it already prohibits this practice!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[gc70]

Even to protect rights? How far you wanna go with that?

Yes, I oppose federal government extortion of the states, even when it is to protect rights.

When the-end-justifies-the-means logic is used to validate inappropriate activity, the future use of the inappropriate activity is unfettered - for right or wrong. Congress has used the "power of the purse" many times to achieve ends that it could not constitutionaly achieve through direct legislation. Anything that allows Congress to end-run the Constitution and the SCOTUS should be feared.

 

[DRZinn]

Yes, I oppose federal government extortion of the states, even when it is to protect rights.

Do I really need to come up with examples? You're speaking of a very dangerous absolute.

 

[gc70]

Do I really need to come up with examples? You're speaking of a very dangerous absolute.

Examples of good results obtained through a bad process will not impress me.

I have taken an absolute position against Congress circumventing the Constitution because there is another - proper - solution. If Congress can't achieve a particular result by passing legislation that conforms to the Constitution, they can always try to amend the Constitution.

 

[DRZinn]

Examples of good results obtained through a bad process will not impress me.

So the end can never justify the means, even if the end is saving human life? You'd allow people to die if a state was killing them, rather than letting the federal government step into the state's business? And if that's an extreme example, what about "lesser" rights, such as liberty (putting someone in jail for not moving to the back of the bus) or property (forcing the sale of a house to a developer at a reduced price)?

Constitution or no, I want rights to be inviolate. And if that requires the federal government to step in, so be it.

(Not that I have much faith in the federal government to be the watchdog for human rights, but I'm speaking of principle, not reality.)

Sometimes the end DOES justify the means.

 

[gc70]

So the end can never justify the means, even if the end is saving human life?

So, would your example be something like mandatory seatbelt useage, which certainly saves lives? Indeed, the federal government used extortion (threatening to cut off highway funds) to force the states to adopt mandatory seatbelt laws. I (and maybe a few others) think the federal government's action was improper; you may not.

Constitution or no, I want rights to be inviolate. And if that requires the federal government to step in, so be it.

And which tyrant do you want to designate to decide when to follow the Constitution and when to simply ignore it?

 

[DRZinn]

So, would your example be something like mandatory seatbelt useage, which certainly saves lives? Indeed, the federal government used extortion (threatening to cut off highway funds) to force the states to adopt mandatory seatbelt laws. I (and maybe a few others) think the federal government's action was improper; you may not.

You misunderstand. Oh boy, do you misunderstand. I meant protecting rights (life, liberty, and property, and extensions thereof) from violations by others, not from anything that might happen. Seat-belt laws are a violation of liberty, in the guise of protecting life. So yes, federal coercion of states in that regard is highly improper.

Protecting rights is (to me) the only proper function of government, and I don't really care what level of government does what as long as the protection of human rights is the outcome.

I would prefer a clause in the Constitution that would specify that the federal government has the power to protect the rights of the people.

 

[gc70]

I would prefer a clause in the Constitution that would specify that the federal government has the power to protect the rights of the people.

The Constitution contains quite a number of clauses that protect the rights of people. Those clauses protect specific, enumerated rights.

I meant protecting rights (life, liberty, and property, and extensions thereof) from violations by others, not from anything that might happen.

That's already covered in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution:

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

What you seem to favor, and what the Constitution lacks, is a provision giving the government blanket authority to dream up new rights at its own discretion.

 

[DRZinn]

The Constitution contains quite a number of clauses that protect the rights of people. Those clauses protect specific, enumerated rights.

The problem is, we have rights that are not specifically enumerated. (Abstractly, I think we can agree on that.) If those rights are being violated, I want it stopped. I don't care who does it.

That's already covered in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution:
Quote:
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Didn't work to well for people with dark skin in the south.... Actually, that proves my point. We have a violation of rights being committed by the states. It was perfectly legal, not having been judged otherwise, but was nonetheless a very serious violation. Should the federal government step in to stop it?

Look, I'm not arguing that the feds are correct all the time, or even most of the time, when they force the states to take action, or to refrain from taking action. But when you speak in absolutes ("Yes, I oppose federal government extortion of the states, even when it is to protect rights.") you'd better be sure you're right.

 

[NickEllis]

if it passes...

I will be interested to see how this works out; this would then affect the Kelo case directly, right? Or is that statute already past at this point?

 

[gc70]

The problem is, we have rights that are not specifically enumerated. (Abstractly, I think we can agree on that.) If those rights are being violated, I want it stopped. I don't care who does it.

The Constitution enumerates major rights and establishes a framework in which lesser rights can be addressed through legislation.

Didn't work to well for people with dark skin in the south.... Actually, that proves my point. We have a violation of rights being committed by the states. It was perfectly legal, not having been judged otherwise, but was nonetheless a very serious violation. Should the federal government step in to stop it?

Actually, it proves my point. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to protect the rights that were being abused. The Civil Rights Act is a piece of legislation that was enacted fully within the framework of the Constitution.

To recap, the Constitution protects many rights and sets up a way for Congress to protect other rights by passing laws. And if an issue can't be addressed within the existing framework of the Constitution, there are even provisions to amend the Constitution. Therefore, there is no reason (except maybe laziness or underhandedness) for Congress to try to circumvent the Constitution.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I object to the lazy way Congress is trying to use its all-purpose "power of the purse" approach to address the issue of eminent domain. Congress should put a little effort into directly addressing the issue in a constitutional manner. If Congress can't craft direct legislation that conforms to the Constitution, the polls I have seen suggest there would be no difficulty in passing a Constitutional amendment to address the issue.

 

[jnojr]

Also, keep in mind that we do not want to gut eminent domain entirely. There are a lot of cases where it's used appropriately... to get a new freeway through, to get rid of a crackhouse, etc.