House resoundingly condemns the Kelo v. City of New London decision

[landusepbb]

For Immediate Release
June 30, 2005

Contact Brian Kennedy at (202) 226-9109



House United on Private Property Rights





Washington , DC - Today a united House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed
H. Res 340 , expressing its condemnation of the recent Supreme Court decision in . House Committee on Resources Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA), author of This Land is Our Land: How to End the War on Private Property , issued the following statement on the resolution's passage:



"While the full breadth of this decision's consequences may not be fully realized for some time, I am sure the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves as we approach this Independence Day weekend. The Supreme Court's decision
to allow local governments to declare eminent domain turns the Fifth Amendment on its head. It has wholly perverted the scope of the public use clause, and in so doing, may turn the American dream of home ownership into a nightmare.



The assault on private property is decades old, but until now the typical victims have been family farmers and ranchers in the West. This decision, however, delivers the property rights assault straight from rural America right to the doorsteps of suburbia.



One of the most poignant statements in the Declaration of Independence charged that the King of Great Britain had ' erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of new Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance .'



As a result, our forefathers realized that private property - indeed owning the fruits of one's labor - was so inextricably linked to freedom that they sought its protection in the Constitution along with civil rights. In this decision, the officers of the Supreme Court have similarly signaled to state and local bureaucrats that the taking of private property, whatever their whims, is justified by an indirect and abstract notion of public good. This is not what the Framers intended.



Fortunately, Congress maintains the power over the purse strings. We will act to minimize the effects of this ruling to the greatest extent possible. States and local communities alike, recognizing the importance of private property rights, have also begun to act to protect themselves from this decision. I applaud their action and that of the House today."

[Pooge]

thats the best news I've heard so far today...

Doug

[Whitewater]

Supreme Court!
House of Reps and Mr Pombo!

[Sully]

As a result, our forefathers realized that private property - indeed owning the fruits of one's labor - was so inextricably linked to freedom that they sought its protection in the Constitution along with civil rights.

Hey, Mr Congressman, while you're at it, how about condemning that Federal Income Tax that I pay every year?

[gipper]

um, if Congress doesn't like a law, why don't they just change it. After all, that IS their function. They really are suppossed to do more than just bitch about dumb shit, get coked up and kill hookers.

[Sully]

Originally Posted by gipper

um, if Congress doesn't like a law, why don't they just change it. After all, that IS their function. They really are suppossed to do more than just bitch about dumb shit, get coked up and kill hookers.

Congress has no authority to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by Sully

Congress has no authority to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court.

That would be a valid point if it had anything to do with what I said.


I said change the law, not overturn a court decision.

[deadmeat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sully
Congress has no authority to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court.


That would be a valid point if it had anything to do with what I said.


I said change the law, not overturn a court decision.




What he said.

In stead of meerly bitching about the Supreme Court Decision, they could have written and passed a new law, more directly defining owners rights in "Eminent Domain" cases.
In other words, done thier job.

This way, they get to look like they did something, and get applauded for it. When they really did nothing.

[Nomadic1]

Fuckers that voted for this need to be tapped right between the ears....

[Sundowner]

Originally Posted by deadmeat

In stead of meerly bitching about the Supreme Court Decision, they could have written and passed a new law, more directly defining owners rights in "Eminent Domain" cases.
In other words, done thier job.

This way, they get to look like they did something, and get applauded for it. When they really did nothing.

my thoughts,exactly

[Moab Austin]

does anybody know how to research this?

I wanna know who voted for this in the first place...I am gunna put them in my sig, and all over the net.

and bumperstickers

[Haole]

Originally Posted by gipper

um, if Congress doesn't like a law, why don't they just change it. After all, that IS their function. They really are suppossed to do more than just bitch about dumb shit, get coked up and kill hookers.

Changing a part of the bill of rights is not quite as easy as you think.

[Nomadic1]

Originally Posted by Moab Austin

does anybody know how to research this?

I wanna know who voted for this in the first place...I am gunna put them in my sig, and all over the net.

and bumperstickers

====
Surpreme Court Judges;
For:

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Against:

O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

[ironpig70]

lets see republican and a californian and he represents the 11th district which includes lodi

[Whitewater]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

lets see republican and a californian and he represents the 11th district which includes lodi

Can't possibly be, we are all a bunch of liberal latte sipping BMW driving elitists.

[DavidVanVorous]

Originally Posted by Sully

Congress has no authority to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court.

Ahhh but they DO have the authority to rewrite or legislate-rewite laws against a ruling if they so choose. Thats part of the check-balance system in the Constitution as already stated by another poster before me...

Further just because a ruling was make does not necessarily mean that it will be enfored either. Case in point Marshalls ruling on both GA vs Cherokee nation and its counterpart with Worshester vs. Cherokee nation. Marshall ruled against the relocation (trail of tears) and Jacksons response was essentially "you enfore it, I wont..."


D.

[ironpig70]

Originally Posted by Whitewater

Can't possibly be, we are all a bunch of liberal latte sipping BMW driving elitists.

here

California's recent redistricting process has brought the 11th Congressional District to the Bay Area. The new district now includes portions of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara Counties. Some of the largest populations in this seat include Danville, Lodi, Pleasanton, Tracy, Stockton, & Morgan Hill.


Under the newly drawn district, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 8 points. The registration in the new seat shows that Republicans lead the Democrats 46% to 39%.
This new Republican strength showed up during the 2002 General, when Congressman Richard Pombo gained over 35,000 more votes than his Democratic opponent - 21% more votes.
Moreover, East Bay and Central Valley Democrats and Independents have a long history of crossover voting. As evidenced by George W. Bush's a convincing eight-point victory over Al Gore in this district



i california may be a blue state but i live in a red district