The US House just
passed the Private Property Rights Protection Act. HR 1689 to discourage property seizure
by developers.
In
2004, the Supreme Court ruled, in the Kelo v. City of New London decision,
that eminent domain could be used to seize private property from one owner
and give it to another in the name of "economic
development." It remains one of the most controversial
decisions the court has made this century.
Yesterday,
Congress belatedly addressed the troubling issues raised by the decision by
passing the Private Property Rights Protection
Act. As Ed
Morrissey at Hot Air points out, no major media outlets covered this seminal
issue regarding the rights of citizens to be secure in their property.
Amazingly,
not one major media outlet picked up on this, not even to note that it
took thirteen years for Congress to address the issue. It
might not have gone far even now had it not been for renewed interest in the case from the recent
independent film Little Pink House, starring Catherine Keener as Susette
Kelo and Jeanne Tripplehorn and produced by Ted Balaker, formerly of Reason.
It's
tough to understand the indifference. The House vote didn't have much drama to it,
but the issue directly aims at the relationship we have with government and the
nature of private property, a core right recognized in the Constitution.
Kelo perverted
that relationship, putting everyone's property rights hostage to politicians
who want to hand off spoils to bigger entities. The case prompted
some states to step in and redefine eminent domain to prevent another New
London abuse, but Congress has remained relatively passive about it until now.
There
are many justifiable instances where the needs of the community might be best
served by employing eminent domain. The argument isn't if states and
local governments have the right to invoke eminent domain, but rather the
overly broad justification used by the court to allow a private developer to
seize someone else's property.
Seizing
property to build or improve a road or expand an airport that benefits the
entire community might meet a reasonable standard where eminent domain can be
used.
But
in Kelo, only a few private developers
benefited. That the court deliberately weakened private property
rights has been a stain on its reputation to uphold our most precious
constitutional rights.
Rep.
James Sensenbrenner was the primary mover behind the bill: To combat this expansion of power,
H.R. 1689 would make any state or locality that uses the economic development
justification for eminent domain ineligible from receiving federal economic
development funds for two years. This creates a major incentive for
governments to respect the private property rights of its citizens.
Additionally,
the legislation bars the federal government from exercising eminent domain
powers for the purposes of economic development.
Democrats
would dearly love to weaken the idea of private property rights because they
get in the way of government redistributing wealth. Many on the far
left see private property as wicked and the root of all evil in the capitalist
system. Needless to say, our rights will be in danger if the
"democratic socialists" ever achieve real power.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment