House Votes To Undercut Supreme Court 5-4 Ruling On Property

David_Paul · #1 Jul 1, '05, 9:25 am

Washington Post July 1, 2005 Mike Allen and Charles Babington

The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.

Last week's 5 to 4 decision has drawn a swift and visceral backlash from an unusual coalition of conservatives concerned about property rights and liberals worried about the effect on poor people, whose property is often vulnerable to condemnation because it does not generate a lot of revenue.

The House measure, which passed 231 to 189, would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall . . .continued here
*****

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's office released a transcript of her press conference yesterday. A selection :

Quote:

. . . when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general .

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision . . .

full transcript

KathleenElsie · #2 Jul 1, '05, 9:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_Paul

Washington Post July 1, 2005 Mike Allen and Charles Babington

The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.

Last week's 5 to 4 decision has drawn a swift and visceral backlash from an unusual coalition of conservatives concerned about property rights and liberals worried about the effect on poor people, whose property is often vulnerable to condemnation because it does not generate a lot of revenue.

The House measure, which passed 231 to 189, would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall . . .continued here
*****

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's office released a transcript of her press conference yesterday. A selection :

MS. Pelosi is out of touch with the wishes of the majority of her party. WE THE PEOPLE have the obligation to tell OUR government what we want done in this country. Let them take it to a vote so we can see who supports the rights of individuals over the rights of business and governing bodies.

Richardols · #3 Jul 1, '05, 1:38 pm

Odd couple on this issue: the far right-wing like DeLay and the far left-wing! The leftists want this legislation because of their traditional position that the rights of the poor must be protected against the government and the rightists want the legislation because of their traditional support of private property.

Good for each side!

**Edwin1961** · #4 Jul 1, '05, 1:46 pm

I am impressed with Congress on this one!
It is showing that making a bill to stop funding by the federal governement for local governemnts to by private land under emiment domain is what is needed.

Just shows the courts that you're wrong on this one....and many other decisions.

David_Paul · #5 Jul 1, '05, 1:47 pm

Must you always attempt to make the equivalency argument?

Tom DeLay is not a right wing version of Maxine Waters and John Conyers. Conyers and Waters are marxists, represent ethnic enclaves and could not run for statewide office anywhere.

Tom Delay is Majority leader because he represents what nearly all Republican House members believe and what the majority of Republicans believe.

We have some inner city marxists and the GOP united against the Democratic party--not both extremes united.

Richardols · #6 Jul 1, '05, 1:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_Paul

Must you always attempt to make the equivalency argument?

It's a fact, not my opinion. A far-rightist like DeLay and some leftists have the same position on the pending legislation.

Lizzie · #7 Jul 1, '05, 6:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_Paul

Must you always attempt to make the equivalency argument?

Tom DeLay is not a right wing version of Maxine Waters and John Conyers. Conyers and Waters are marxists, represent ethnic enclaves and could not run for statewide office anywhere.

Tom Delay is Majority leader because he represents what nearly all Republican House members believe and what the majority of Republicans believe.

We have some inner city marxists and the GOP united against the Democratic party--not both extremes united.

Maxine Waters loves Fidel Castro. I guess she appreciates the way Fidel runs Cuban presidential elections.

David_Paul · #8 Jul 1, '05, 6:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizzie

Maxine Waters loves Fidel Castro. I guess she appreciates the way Fidel runs Cuban presidential elections.

Good point. Waters, John Conyers and many others in congress on the far left make pilgrimages to honor Fidel Castro. Just a few years ago, Castro's men machine gunned women and children on a tug attempting to flee Cuba.

A poster above claims Tom Delay is the right wing version of Maxine Waters.

So which brutal dictator does Tom Delay praise? What totalitarian regime does Tom Delay pay homage to?

Lizzie · #9 Jul 1, '05, 8:33 pm

Hah! Dont tell me that both Conyers and Waters also supported Fidel Castro! When Fidel imprisoned and quarantined Cuban AIDS patients, they didn't utter a peep.

One should seriously consider how black people have suffered because the MSM-designated poobahs llike Waters and Conyers have led their own people astray.

HagiaSophia · #10 Jul 1, '05, 11:07 pm

I loved the title of this article:

In an editorial headlined "The Limits of Property Rights," the Times called this decision "a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest." It said the redevelopment plan at issue in Kelo, which involves leveling the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut, to make way for a conference center, restaurants, and shops, "may hurt a few small property owners," but "many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs."

The collectivist logic here is worthy of a Soviet central planner: The government decides what "the public interest" is and allocates resources accordingly, without regard to the private plans of the individuals who happen to own those resources. It's OK if people are hurt in the process, because on balance the welfare of the group will improve.

For the Times, acting in the public interest includes reassigning property rights based on the government's determination of which owners will generate the most tax revenue and jobs. In New London, the public interest happens to coincide with the interests of Pfizer, which inspired the city's redevelopment plan when it decided to open a new research facility adjacent to Fort Trumbull. In New York City, the public interest happens to coincide with the interests of The New York Times, which used eminent domain to forcibly obtain the land on which it is building its new headquarters.....

http://reason.com/sullum/070105.shtml

RikasAngel · #11 Jul 2, '05, 1:11 am

Hello All,

The Decision by the Supreme Court regading property was a disgrace. It proves that there needs to be a change in the court!

Digitonomy · #12 Jul 5, '05, 7:12 pm

Returning to the topic at hand, has anyone seen an analysis of this bill's effect? How many private developments rely on federal funding? I would think the effect would be scattered, not very effective overall. But then I know little about real estate and development.

Brad · #13 Jul 6, '05, 8:01 am

Between Pelosi's outrageous comments that the Supreme Court is God and Biden's comments below:

"[The Supreme Court] is a totally different ball game. ... A circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don't get to make new law. They have to abide by [legal precedent]."

(from http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...3/132750.shtml)

We see that the Democrats are largely not only completely lacking in understanding of how the government should operate but how they explicitly want to use the courts to control the people of the United States as they wish.

The Supreme Court IS NOT as if God spoke. The Supreme Court CAN NOT make law.

All this time, we have been told that they are not making law, they are just "intepreting the Constitution". Biden clearly shows he knows that the SC is making law and he wants it that way.

Pelosi just shows that she is borderline crazy.