[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 13400]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         KELO THIRD ANNIVERSARY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. The fifth amendment to the U.S. 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.''
  June 23, 2005, marks a very sad day in our Nation's history. Exactly 
3 years ago today, five unelected members of the U.S. Supreme Court 
made one of the most despised rulings in our Nation's history, one of 
the most egregious, unconstitutional rulings in our Nation's history in 
its ruling of Kelo v. City of New London.
  The courts allowed a small Connecticut town to seize a private home 
to make way for a riverfront development. This activist decision was an 
attack on middle-class citizens for the benefit of the rich. There have 
been no worse interpretations of the intent of the fifth amendment than 
when the Supreme Court seized a private home for the profit of a 
private company. Yes, a private company.
  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, with whom I have disagreed on many of 
her decisions, was spot on in her dissent when we stated, ``the specter 
of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the 
State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, or any home with 
a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.''
  She added that under the Court's decision in Kelo, ``any property may 
now be taken for the benefit of another private party,'' and ``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 a license to transfer 
their property from those with fewer resources, to those with more.

                              {time}  2145

  The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.''
  So detested was the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling that the small home 
that became the center of the New London land grab has been moved and 
restored near the center of town as a constant reminder of the town's 
injustice. That small, pink home once represented a private home, but 
now it is a symbol of the evils of an activist court that disregards 
our constitutional rights.
  Our Founding Fathers knew that our liberties were only as secure as 
our property rights. Property rights are a central institution of 
Western civilization, yet too often our Nation has violated the basic 
principles of our Founding Fathers. Federal, State and local 
governments continue to ignore, neglect, disparage and even fail to 
understand the importance of property rights.
  Today I am pleased to introduce a resolution defending private 
property rights. This resolution in a very clear manner reflects the 
intent of our Founding Fathers when they listed private property rights 
as untouchable by government power. By placing property rights in the 
fifth amendment to the Constitution, the Founders made the protection 
of private property a primary aim of the American government. There is 
no provision in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the 
Constitution, that allows the unnecessary, predatory seizure of private 
land.
  On this, the third anniversary of one of the Supreme Court's most 
infamous decisions, I am proud to join property rights advocates all 
over America in renewing our protest against judicial activism. I 
applaud the many States that have passed legislation to limit their 
power to eminent domain and the supreme courts of many States that have 
barred the practice under their State constitution. I applaud the 
courage of Susette Kelo and other victims of eminent domain abuse who 
have stood up to their government and fought for their constitutional 
rights.
  As John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution stated: ``Let these 
truths be indelibly impressed on our minds: (1) that we cannot be happy 
without being free; (2) that we cannot be free without being secure in 
our property; and (3) that we cannot be secure in our property if, 
without our consent, others may as by right take it away.''
  Private property rights are critical for freedom, and we need to 
fight for private property rights.

                          ____________________