The House has finally done something worthwhile, voting to undercut the Supco's Kelo decision:
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. Historically, eminent domain has been used mainly for public purposes such as highways or airports.
The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, would apply to funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Majority
Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said they will push for a more inclusive measure that would apply to all federal funds. [Washington Post]
The Kelo decision has brought about an unusual rash of bi-partisanship on the Hill, with both Democrats and Republicans agreeing that it stinks to high heaven:
Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she is "outraged" by the decision. "It's the most un-American thing that can be done."
... "The Supreme Court voted last week to undo private property rights and to empower governments to kick people out of their homes and give them to someone else because they feel like it," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. "No court that denies property rights will long respect and recognize other basic human rights."
When those two are on the same page, you know something big is going on...
The Heritage Foundation's Ronald Utt makes a good case against the Kelo ruling, but also predicts that the near-universal revulsion to it could actually help to slow down so-called "smart growth," and the urban/suburban sprawl that the modern-day "takings clause" would otherwise encourage. (It's long, but worth the time). |
