|
A Free Press |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND Bush executive order limits property seizure On 1-year anniversary of Kelo decision president puts curb on eminent domain Posted: June 24, 2006 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily.com
The Supreme Court ruled last June in Kelo v. City of New London the municipal government could seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the case was significant because the seizure was for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The court, however, noted states are free to enact additional protections. Since then, 31 states have passed laws restricting the use of eminent domain.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, praised President Bush's order, but the senator pointed out the federal government has a limited role in such projects. He has introduced legislation to block federal funding for any state or local projects in which land was taken through eminent domain. "The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and a distinctive aspect of our form of government," Cornyn said, according to the Associated Press. "The Supreme Court's decision last year represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years, and the president's action was an important step toward righting that wrong." A supporter of the Connecticut city's right to take the homes in the Kelo case dismissed the order as a political move. Doug Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, said he's not aware of any federal government agency that takes property for economic development. "It's an effort to appease the property rights base, while ignoring the difficult question of when eminent domain should be used to help downtrodden communities," he said, according to the AP. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the executive order put the federal government on record opposing eminent domain for merely economic development purposes. "The president is a strong supporter of private property rights," she said. Since the Kelo decision, an avalanche of property confiscations have followed, including these cases:
Related offer: Get the April edition of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine – "THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY" Related story: President Bush's executive order Previous stories: City to seize church by eminent domain Eminent 'doughmain': Cash greases owners Eminent-domain mayor: We're rescuing residents New London homeowners slapped with eviction notices Warning: Kelo puts church property at risk City wants back rent from Kelo residents Souter-home seizer to meet with residents Effort to take Breyer's home moving ahead Justice Breyer: 'Not all our decisions are right' Eminent domania comes to the movies Souter-home campaign targets pols Movement builds to seize Souter home Souter suitor wants a real hotel company Supreme Court justice faces boot from home? Property battle heads to states
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||