1
   

Bill against rulling

 
 
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 07:04 pm
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPO's PDF Display Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status Printer Friendly Display - 5,552 bytes.[Help]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1313 IS


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1313
To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 27, 2005
Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizures and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders.

(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is `the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it'.

(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that `private property' shall not `be taken for public use without just compensation'.

(4) The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only `for public use'.

(5) On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108.

(6) As the Court acknowledged, `it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B', and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only `for public use'.

(7) The Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development.

(8) The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has `effectively . . . delete[d] the words `for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment' and thereby `refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution'.

(9) Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns, `[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory'.

(10) Justice O'Connor further warns that, under the Court's decision in Kelo, `[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party', and `the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result'.

(11) As an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted, `[a]bsent a true public use requirement the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly'.

(12) It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, 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.

(13) It would also be appropriate for States to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, `nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power'.

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

(a) In General- The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.

(b) Public Use- In this Act, the term `public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.

(c) Application- This Act shall apply to--

(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and

(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.


I hope this works, but I doubt it.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,538 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:23 am
Unless the city of New London's redevelopment project used federal funds, this bill would not have changed the result in Kelo.
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:24 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Unless the city of New London's redevelopment project used federal funds, this bill would not have changed the result in Kelo.
"That true," but who knows if this bill will pave the way for the future.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:38 pm
Oh goody, another law to protect us from the laws we made previously. As a great man once said, "the more laws a society has the more corrupt the society is" and that's the truth.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:11 pm
No man's life or property are secure while the legislature is in session.

-- Samuel Clemens
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bill against rulling
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 03:56:32