[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 87 (Monday, June 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H5218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the fifth amendment to the
Constitution states that ``No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation.''
However, that was then.
Thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, the
fifth amendment has been vastly expanded.
As one Supreme Court Justice stated in the dissent, ``Nothing is to
prevent the State from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any
home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.''
Property rights? There is nothing right about this decision. Now, tax
revenues are more important than neighborhoods.
Mr. Speaker, with this decision, the rights of our citizens are now
competing with tax revenue and private developments. The Constitution
is meant to protect the rights of our citizens, not compete with the
bottom line.
What is clear at this moment is that the Supreme Court has thrown the
protection of individual property rights right out the window. These
Justices need to be reined back in by both State action and loud
condemnation of this outrageous finding.
Public use has been redefined so boldly by this Supreme Court
decision that it's no wonder citizens are concerned about their homes
and property.
In the short term, all states are encouraged to adopt strict and
narrow definitions of ``public use.''
In the long term, we in Congress must determine whether more clarity
needs to be brought to the court on this matter.
Remember Jefferson's principle: ``The true foundation of republican
government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and
property and in their management.''--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel
Kercheval, 1816.
____________________