It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Bill In House Passes To Counter Supreme Court Eminent Domain Ruling

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:21 PM
A bill in the House was passed 376-38 to counter a former Supreme Court 5-4 ruling to allow state and local governments to seize properties for the benefit of developers. The bill would withhold federal funds to state and local governments for two years who use the power of eminent domain to seize properties for commercial use. Opponents of the eminent domain ruling have long claimed that the "takings clause" provided in the Fifth Ammendment is being routinely abused.
The court's June decision, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, changed established constitutional principles by holding that "any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party."

The bill, said Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, which represented the Kelo homeowners before the Supreme Court, "highlights the fact that this nation's eminent domain and urban renewal laws need serious and substantial changes."

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 money from going for improvements on land seized for private development. The Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill applying similar restrictions. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced companion legislation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I find it interesting that the difference between the pros and cons in the house (376-38) is so different than the 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue. Why would the court's decision be so different, when the people in the house clearly do not agree? Could the Supreme Court be affected by corporate lobbying interests moreso than the US House of Representatives?

Well regardless, I feel that finally our representatives are rising to protect our inherent rights in the real estate that we buy.


Discussion Threads:

[edit on 4-11-2005 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:43 PM
Disregard this post. Submission fixed.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:21 PM
"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."


A pretty good budget cutter there, surprised it didn't get more support!!!

so, who is gonna decide who is abusing the power, and who isn't? I mean if it's left up to the majority party in washington, I'm afraid siezing a small track of abandoned land that has loads of money owed in back taxes to build a much needed extension to a communities hospital would be abuse.....while, at the same time, bulldozing 50 homes for a new wal mart would be perfectly acceptable......just a matter of weather the community is red or blue. and well, if you throw it into the arena of the courts, well they've already had their say, haven't they...if that wal mart can bring in the tax revenue while the hospital drains them, well, the wal mart will win hands down!

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:25 PM
Basically what this bill does it take away power from the states and transfer it to the federal government. This comes as no shock as this has been the way the feds have operated for years now. It doesn't come out and say it but the bill implies that only the federal government has the right to take your property for whatever reason it sees fit.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:30 PM
Exactly what indy pointed out. This does not protect the American citizen and their property. All it does is upsurp the control from the state and local goverment and place it into the federal goverment's laps. If the federal goverment thinks it is better to build an office building or a new parking lot where you and your family have lived for 100's of years, guess what, you better start packing because your out of there!

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:09 PM
I honestly don't see what Indy is talking about:

The Bush administration, backing the House bill, said in a statement 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 House bill would cut off for two years all federal economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for property seizures. It also would bar the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.

The Bill insures that the federal government can't use eminent domain either.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:58 PM
What is to stop the feds from doing it? There are obvious penalties if the state does it. Is this a case where the feds won't be able to do it or is it a case where the feds won't do it... kind of like how the feds wouldn't use provisions of the Patriot Act against U.S. citizens? Fine. If they want to pass a provision like then then go for it. First time the feds try and steal someones property like this then the people need to cut the feds off at the knees and boot everyone of them out of office and start our system over from scratch. I for one don't believe for a minute that the feds wouldn't take your property in the manner they would be denying the states. The have a history going against them. But I suspect most of us would just sit back and complain and not actually do something about it if the feds abused this power as well. Just my 2 cents.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 08:32 PM
so it's a squabble between who gets to decide which business should be able to kick you off you land....

but they want this to be an ownership society!!! so more people will own more for them to take?

the poor shouldn't be having kids that they cant afford, but then they gripe if the poor decides to abort them....

and well, the unemployed should get an education, get retrained for these "brain jobs" that are being "created"......but then they cut the financial aide....

and of course, we should all want to own our own home........but then, they can take it away so they can have a new football stadium, or wal mart, or whatever!!!

maybe part of the problem as to why things are such a mess is that there is no consistancy in their policies. one action just disrupts the goals behind other actions.

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 09:56 PM
Just the very fact that, at first glance it appears the big dogs might do something decent for the average joe, makes one look twice, maybe three times!

I agree that this is just a sleight of hand maneuver.......they're just pretending to do the right thing. There must have been quite an outcry from the voting base back home......maybe they thought a gesture like this would quiet them down a bit.

PS...add to dawnstar's list.....the jobs we get educated for are then outsourced, and we still end up working in a low paying dead end job.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by frayed1]

top topics


log in