House of Representatives set to Approve Bill to Overturn Kelo Eminent Domain Case
Submitted by bobbyw24 on Mon, 02/27/2012 - 16:02By Pete Kasperowicz - 02/27/12 09:25 AM ET
The House on Monday afternoon is expected to approve legislation that would overturn a 2005 Supreme Court decision holding that state and local governments can take private property under the principle of eminent domain in order to further their economic development plans.
The 2005 decision, Kelo v. City of New London, was seen by Republicans in particular as a case of government overreach. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution limits the authority of government to seize property, by requiring compensation and mandating that the land taken be put to public use.
Prior to Kelo, the Supreme Court had held that the seizing of slums and the transfer of that land to private developers fit the "public use" standards. But in Kelo, the Supreme Court upheld the right of New London, Conn., to take non-blighted land and transfer it to a private developer, in a bid to increase local tax revenue.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/212699-house-tak...
Justice Thomas' dissent in
Justice Thomas' dissent in this case earned him a bit of respect in my eyes. As did his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich ;P
Politiks
Passed overwhelmingly in 2009
And apparently died in the Senate. Harry Reid, of the sweet-heart Nevada real-estate deal, is probably not eager to hurt his real estate developer friends by limiting government's ability to steal land. Nor is Obama, former Senator from Tony Rezko.
True
True
Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective
www.twitter.com/AbolishTheFed
I like the idea of standing up for Amendment 5 of course, but
I'm not so sure this bill is the way to do it.
The proper response is to impeach the justices that made the decision.
Let's impeach the bastards after Ron Paul is elected
Judge Nap needs a job opening!
I'll take this way
and forego the satisfaction of impeachment. It's a matter of what's doable. I doubt Obama would sign it if it gets through the senate but it could be reintroduced next session.
New Hampshire and Ecuador.
The thing I'm worried about is a "path" to further takings
carved out of this legislation.
I still have to read the bill, but the general idea bothers me.
If it is unconstitutional, you don't need a law on the subject. You just remove from the bench the justices who violated their oath of office.
There is too much focus on "spelling out" the law. I understand why some people want to do that, but doing so can really backfire if you aren't careful.
Technically we already have the law spelled out. It's called Article the Fifth.
My reasoning is the same that some Founders used to not put in a prohibition to paper money in the Constitution. If you prohibit something with particular language, some asshole will interpret it as meaning such action that technically skirts that language is just A.O.K.
It might actually carve out a way for them to do it anyway, as long as it doesn't "run afoul" of this particular law.
No, we've already given the prohibition. Hell, this very reasoning is how the Kelo decision was made. The decision itself is proof I'm right on this.
The proper response is judicial impeachment for clear violation of oath of office.
Bump for good news.
Bump for good news.
Very good news
...and I know at least one Congressman who will definitely vote for this!
Eminent domain is a huge issue right now because it's being used to advance Agenda 21.