Eminent Domain: House unanimously passes bill that addresses 13-year-old Kelo decision

American Thinker ^ | 07/25/2018 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

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,

[DoodleDawg]

Unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds.

[Parley Baer]

But what will the Senate do?

[Political Junkie Too]

What is unconstitutional, this bill or something else?

Eminent Domain is federal from the takings clause of the fifth amendment, but it is limited to takings for public use. Kelo perverted that by equating public "use" with public "good." That was the unconstitutional act.

-PJ

[Buckeye McFrog]

Unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds.

Attach an amendment that removes jurisdiction from inferior courts.

The case will immediately be forced to SCOTUS, which will get a do-over on Kelo.

[novemberslady]

bkmk

[Retvet]

Face it mass media is anti personal rights except when it comes to infanticide.

[j.havenfarm]

Kelo= David Souter’s masterpiece. Love me some “evolving” Republican SCOTUS appointees.

[DoodleDawg]

The case will immediately be forced to SCOTUS, which will get a do-over on Kelo.

In the original Kelo decision it was appealed directly to the Supreme Court anyway since Article III says that when the state is a party then the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The amendment shouldn't be needed.

No reason why a do-over should lead to a different ruling. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to define "public use". Therefore it's the state's power on 10th Amendment grounds.

[Lmo56]

About damn to time! WORST decision since Plessy v. Ferguson. AND,it was a liberal decision.

[KC_Conspirator]

An awful, awful decision that openly allows the government to take your rights away.

[DoodleDawg]

Eminent Domain is federal from the takings clause of the fifth amendment, but it is limited to takings for public use. Kelo perverted that by equating public "use" with public "good." That was the unconstitutional act.

Where is "public use" defined in the Constitution? If it isn't then defining it is a power reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment.

[mikeus_maximus]

“It’s tough to understand the indifference”?

Seriously? The belief in a fundmental right to property stems from a belief in Natural (divine) Law. Oliver Wendell Holmes and his simpaticos, steeped in social darwinism and atheism, did a good job intentionally expunging those concepts from our educational institutions in general, the media, and public discourse in general. To most people, there is no “higher law” protecting “certain inalienable rights.” They believe that whatever rights we have are granted by the government according to “the felt necessities of the time.” And since liberals almost universally believe a strong central government with “the right people in charge” will usher in utopia, well... of course they don’t care if government tramples individual rights to property, free speech, religious expression, or self protection.

[DoodleDawg]

Another question I’ll ask is that after the Kelo decision over 30 states passed legislation restricting how eminent domain can be used. Would you rather the federal government was making that decision for them?

[Phlyer]

Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to define "public use". Therefore it's the state's power on 10th Amendment grounds.

I don't disagree, but that's the tail on this wagging dog. The legislation stops federal funding for states that use eminent domain to seize private land for 'economic development.' Deciding where to spend federal money is clearly a Constitutional duty of the Congress. If they had prohibited states from using eminent domain for 'economic development' then they would have been unConstitutional, but all this legislation says is that they're not going to fund it.

Plus, they said that no federal seizures for economic development could be done - another case of Congress directing what the federal government should do and therefore Constitutional - so long as the underlying act is itself Constitutional.

The problem is that the federal government is so involved in every detail of our lives - including in funding lots of things that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize. The unConstitutional thing is funding any 'economic development' whether by the states, or by the federal government itself, unless that 'economic development' clearly fulfills a public need like a military base, where the 'economic development' that follows is secondary to the legitimate purpose of the government.

[publius911]

Eminent Domain is federal from the takings clause of the fifth amendment, but it is limited to takings for public use. Kelo perverted that by equating public "use" with public "good." That was the unconstitutional act.

I want my language back!

Unchecked, Unlimited taxing power CAN NEVER BE "the Public Good..."

We need an additional law...
The legislature is forbidden to use ambiguous, deceptive, fraudulent and Felonious language in the title of any new Law.

e.g. The Affordable Care Act

[Ge0ffrey]

Why so little media scrutiny? Because the liberal judges voted FOR it.

[Lmo56]

The new legislation does not affect the States that have forbid taking ala what happened in Kelo.

It punishes those that permit it by denying federal economic development money to the state for 2 years.

A second component of the legislation forbids the federal government from taking ala Kelo. This part of the legislation is necessary since no law a state passes could supercede the federal government if this part is not included.

[Political Junkie Too]

Wasn't public use one of those things that was understood, that is, use meant used. Used meant that the public needed the property for a public use such as a road or a building that couldn't be placed anywhere else.

Maybe we should look for the definition of the word "constitution" while we're at it? Maybe the Framers really meant their "daily constitutional?"

-PJ