[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1379-E1380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   PROPERTY RIGHTS AND EMINENT DOMAIN

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. CLIFF STEARNS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 28, 2005

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week, on this Floor I saluted the 
Supreme Court for a ruling that made citizens more free. Also, 
yesterday we passed H. Res. 312, Recognizing National Homeownership.
  However, the Supreme Court I lauded was not ours, but the Canadian 
Supreme Court, for freeing the sale of health insurance. And in fact, 
USA homeownership may not be so liberating. Last Thursday, our Supreme 
Court backed that local governments can co-opt private property, and 
give it to another private entity, for economic development. This is 
under the power of eminent domain, and is an expansive setback to 
property rights advocates and all homedwellers.
  The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution allows the government to take 
private property with ``just compensation''. Historically, it's been 
interpreted only for ``public use'': a highway, military base or other 
such infrastructure. Increasingly, and confirmed by Kelo v. New London, 
the Federal courts have said that private property could be taken for 
``public benefit,'' including tax revenues and job creation. 
Revitalization for the neighborhood trumps individual 
``homeownership''.
  Former bustling, now depressed New London, CT seeks to develop a 
private, commercial enterprise. They must compensate, but

[[Page E1380]]

two homeowners don't want to budge. Susette Kelo has extensively 
remodeled her waterfront-view home. Wilhelmina Dery was born in her 
house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.
  You ask, why worry, how often? According to Institute for Justice, 
the public interest law firm litigating for the homeowners, nationwide, 
more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent 
years.
  Of the majority (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and 
Kennedy), Justice Kennedy provided the dimmest hope, that states are 
free to pass additional protections. Fortunately for citizens of 
Connecticut,
  Governor M. Jodi Rell is urging careful review, and possibly 
legislative solution in Hartford.
  Florida is one of eight states that forbids the use of eminent domain 
when the purpose is not to eliminate blight. This does not reassure. A 
dismayed constituent cried that this decision has turned us into serfs 
who no longer own the land, we just inhabit it at the whim of the 
government. The Supreme Court's justices are appointed by our elected 
President and confirmed by our U.S. Senators, and affirm to uphold the 
U.S. Constitution, under which we think we are living. The Gainesville 
Sun polled ``How do you feel about the Supreme Court ruling giving 
local governments power to seize private property to generate tax 
revenue?'' Huge mistake, said 363 to 31. Similarly, the Marion Pulse of 
the Ocala Star Banner polled that 98.2 percent of its readers disavowed 
the ruling.
  Justice O'Connor (joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) 
impassioned: ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. 
Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-
Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. . . 
. . Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private 
party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The 
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate 
influence and power in the political process, including large 
corporations and development firms. . . . As for the victims, the 
government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer 
resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this 
perverse result.''
  What did the Founders say? Thomas Jefferson wrote that ``Charged with 
the care of the general interest of the Nation, and among these with 
the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their 
behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, 
that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken'' (to W. C. C. 
Claiborne, 1810).
  Yes, the less-connected and the feebler have more to fear. Justice 
Thomas reminded that urban renewal has historically resulted in 
displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor. This is why civil 
rights-promoting groups such as the NAACP and AARP filed friendly 
briefs. Non-profits and religious organizations also worry--they don't 
generate taxes. So, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty were Amicus 
supporting petitioners.
  When I took this job I vowed to uphold the Constitution. I will work 
with my colleagues, the Institute for Justice, the NAACP, the American 
Farm Bureau, AARP, Cato Institute, the National Association of 
Homebuilders, Reason Foundation and other property rights advocates, to 
take back the Fifth amendment.

                          ____________________