Balta1701 Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 (edited) I promise...this is my last new thread for a while! The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly thursday to apply penalties to any state which uses the "Kelo v. New London" Supreme Court decision earlier this summer to seize private land. Contending that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society, the sanctity of the home, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers. The bill, passed 376-38, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and 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 private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups that said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." That language provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public use. Lots of issues I think worthy of discussing here...is this a case of the Congress attacking States' rights? Should Congress be in the business of punishing states like this? Can the states be trusted to regulate themselves with regards to that decision? When the Supreme Court originally made that decision, the majority argument was that while public entities seizing private land for use by other private companies was not necessarily a good thing, but that didn't make it unconstitutional. This bill would serve to certainly make it seem like even less of a good thing. Assuming this bill is legal, I like the idea. Edited November 5, 2005 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 They already 'punish' states by withholding federal money if states don't lower alcohol limts for DUI's, or have speed limits they don't like, so why would this be different? They are not saying the states CANNOT do this, just that if you want to do it, you get no money for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.