Protect Your Property Rights - Review ACLJ Here
The beneficiaries are likely to be those with influence and power in the political
process, including large corporations and development firms. Cities shouldn't be allowed
to uproot a family in order to accommodate wealthy developers.
Right now, there is a tremendous momentum against this abuse of power, and we ask each of
you to begin organizing to change the law in your city or county or state.
The Institute for Justice is America's premier libertarian public interest law firm. IJ
pursues cutting-edge litigation on behalf of individuals whose most basic rights are
denied by the State-rights like private property rights. IJ sues the government when it
takes away individuals' property. Institute For Justice
EMINENT DOMAIN UPDATE
WASHINGTON -- July 1, 2005 -- The U.S. House Representatives, in a 365-to-33 vote late
Thursday, expressed "grave disapproval" of the recent Supreme Court decision
allowing eminent domain takings for redevelopment, followed by a vote to prohibit federal
financing of the action.
Eminent domain
"This Congress is just not going to sit by and let an unaccountable judiciary make
these kinds of decisions," Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said of the eminent domain
ruling, calling it a "George Orwell novel of a court decision."
Hours later, the House voted 231 to 189 to ban the use of federal tax dollars for private
property seizures going toward redevelopment by attaching it onto an existing
transportation and housing bill. The move would also ban the federal government from using
its eminent domain powers to take property for private development. It's not clear if the
change will survive a Senate vote, however.
In the Senate, John Cornyn (R-Texas) proposed legislation that would makes the power of
eminent domain acceptable only for "public use," and defined economic
development as outside that limited definition.
Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg erased a key clause from 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Their 5-4
majority decidion allows a local government to seize a home or business against the
owner's will for the purpose of private development. We would like an independent
group to locate the properties that they own and contact a developer to seize it under
their new ruling.
Until now, that has been interpreted to mean projects such as roads, schools and urban
renewal. But officials in New London, Conn., argued that private development plans served
a public purpose of boosting economic growth, even though the area was not blighted. If
such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is, and the Court
has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."
Eminent
Domain Part 1 Eminent Domain Part 2
To Warriors For Truth Conservative Independent News Main Page
|
