House counters eminent domain ruling

[SeaRide]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/04/eminent.domain.ap/index.html

What do you guys think?

 

[ylexot]

I think you can't use a standard law to try to overturn the judgment of the Supreme Court in a matter of interpreting the Constitution.

You want to change it...amend the Constitution. This is a bandaid...and a bad one at that.

 

[Ken King]

I think it's a step at returning to the intent of the last statement of the 5th Amendment. I think that the Supreme Court erred with the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, and set a precedent for outright theft of property to be turned over to private entities that might make more off the land then the current owners.

 

[Baywatchv8]

I think it's a step at returning to the intent of the last statement of the 5th Amendment. I think that the Supreme Court erred with the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, and set a precedent for outright theft of property to be turned over to private entities that might make more off the land then the current owners.

What he said!

 

[bohman]

I think it's a good start, at least a sign that somebody was listening to all the screams of outrage when that court decision went through. The decision was based on the idea that local officials will always know how best to handle their community. No, they're just the most accessible for a developer to bribe/send kickbacks to.

Now, as for how well this new legislation is written, and whether it is the proper fix for the situation - I'll believe it when it happens. Sometimes our wonderful Congress folks use a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

 

[ylexot]

Sometimes our wonderful Congress folks use a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

The problem is that they are trying to use a flyswatter to kill an elephant. The Supreme Court can easily rule their wussy legislation as being unconstitutional. The fundamental role of the Supreme Court is to interpret/clarify the Constitution if there is a question. They have done that in this case. We may disagree with their decision, but that doesn't give Congress the right to ignore that decision. To do so would be to nullify the system of checks and balances. The only proper way for Congress to overrule the Supreme Court decision is to amend the Constitution.

 

[Pete]

The problem is that they are trying to use a flyswatter to kill an elephant. The Supreme Court can easily rule their wussy legislation as being unconstitutional. .

I don't think they can. This law does not make it "illegal" for local governments to take property, it simply says congress will not give cities who do any federal aid. The supreme court cannot tell congress how to appropriate it's money.

Congress could stop the Iraq war tomorrw, simply take back any money left and refuse to fund anymore and their isn't a thing the White House or the Supreme Court could do about it.. Of course it would be political suicide for whoever sponsored or voted for the bill, but it could happen.

Appropriations and withholding federal money from states has been the strong arm tactic of choice for congress for years. 55 MPH speed limit? Drinking age to 21?

In this particular case this tactic serves it's purpose. I typically cringe at the huge expansion of the federal governments purse. They collect huge sums of money from the states, then turn right around and dole it back out to the states like crack dealers to their junkies. Once that money is congresses, they impose their will upon states or cut off the supply. States who are now accustomed to huge federal checks roll over and pee in submission quickly.