Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT House votes overwhelmingly to limit eminent domain.
House Vote Counters Eminent Domain Measure
Associated Press | November 4 2005 By JIM ABRAMS COMMENT: This is a major victory against those who would seek to completely undermine property rights. Now we must lobby our representatives in the Senate to support this legislation and curb this rampant employment of "eminent domain" before it gets even more out of control. WASHINGTON - Conservative defenders of private property and liberal protectors of the poor joined in an overwhelming House vote to prevent local and state governments from seizing homes and businesses for use in economic development projects. The House legislation, passed 376-38, was in response to a widely criticized 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court last June that allowed eminent domain authority to be used to obtain land for tax revenue-generating commercial purposes. That decision, said the House's third-ranked Republican, Deborah Pryce of Ohio, "dealt a blow to the rights of property owners across the country." The bill would withhold for two years all federal economic development funds from 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. It now goes to the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn R-Texas, has introduced similar legislation. The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial use. Conservatives were in the forefront in arguing that this was a dangerous interpretation of the "takings clause" in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution that allows the government to seize property for public use, with just compensation. "Governments should not be able to bulldoze a person's home or business to benefit other individuals," said Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas. Liberals warned that it could make it easier to tear down poor neighborhoods. "We don't need you on this one," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said to those arguing that eminent domain can lead to beneficial urban renewal projects. "We need you to respect the right of those minorities and those poor people to hold on to what is their own." www.infowars.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT House votes overwhelmingly to limit eminent domain.
Bit of good news . . . . David wrote: House Vote Counters Eminent Domain Measure Associated Press | November 4 2005 By JIM ABRAMS COMMENT: This is a major victory against those who would seek to completely undermine property rights. Now we must lobby our representatives in the Senate to support this legislation and curb this rampant employment of "eminent domain" before it gets even more out of control. WASHINGTON - Conservative defenders of private property and liberal protectors of the poor joined in an overwhelming House vote to prevent local and state governments from seizing homes and businesses for use in economic development projects. The House legislation, passed 376-38, was in response to a widely criticized 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court last June that allowed eminent domain authority to be used to obtain land for tax revenue-generating commercial purposes. That decision, said the House's third-ranked Republican, Deborah Pryce of Ohio, "dealt a blow to the rights of property owners across the country." The bill would withhold for two years all federal economic development funds from 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. It now goes to the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn R-Texas, has introduced similar legislation. The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial use. Conservatives were in the forefront in arguing that this was a dangerous interpretation of the "takings clause" in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution that allows the government to seize property for public use, with just compensation. "Governments should not be able to bulldoze a person's home or business to benefit other individuals," said Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas. Liberals warned that it could make it easier to tear down poor neighborhoods. "We don't need you on this one," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said to those arguing that eminent domain can lead to beneficial urban renewal projects. "We need you to respect the right of those minorities and those poor people to hold on to what is their own." www.infowars.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
11 separate acts of treason committed by the White House | Shortwave | |||
OT Mainstream News Providers Have Betrayed The People | Shortwave | |||
Blood is thicker than oil | Shortwave |