I’ll say it again. It’s time for the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. ELIMINATE EMINENT DOMAIN. The government simply cannot be trusted with it, and it will jealously protect it’s ability to seize your land so that elected officials can enjoy payoffs. Frankly, as the second half of this article shows, the government can’t be trusted with the constitution at all.

Friends,
At this very moment, Congress is debating the Private Property Rights Protection Act (H.R. 4128). A series of amendments will be proposed, and many of them attempt to weaken or eliminate the vital protections the bill provides. A statement on those amendments can be found below. Please contact your Congressperson RIGHT NOW and let him or her know that you OPPOSE these amendments. You can find contact information for your Congressperson at http://www.house.gov.

Statement of the Institute for Justice Opposing Certain Amendments to the Private Property Rights Protection Act (H.R. 4128)

The Institute for Justice is the nation’s leading advocate for home and business owners who are affected by the abuse of eminent domain for private development, and it represented Susette Kelo and other homeowners in the now infamous case of Kelo v. City of New London. H.R. 4128 is a vital reform that would discourage the abuse of eminent domain, and thus the Institute supports it. The Institute opposes the following amendments to the bill because they would either eliminate or substantially weaken the protections it provides to home and business owners.

1. Moran #3: Adopting this amendment would weaken the bill’s protections. First, it confuses matters with its use of the term “public use,” which the Supreme Court in Kelo held can mean a private use — i.e., taking property from A and giving to B so that B can generate more money with the land. Second, the amendment says that a taking from A to B for economic development is perfectly fine so long as economic development is not a “primary purpose.” Owners should not have to inquire into the personal motivations of city officials in order to keep their homes and businesses.

2. Granger #4: This amendment weakens the bill because it provides a loophole for governments that take property for a stated reason that is proper — for example, a road — but then turn around and give the property to a private party for private commercial development.

3. Turner #6: This amendment would create an enormous loophole and would thus dramatically weaken the protections the bill provides. The amendment makes an exception for state and local governments that transfer property from A to B for B’s private gain if they can claim that doing so will eliminate things like “obsolescence” and “excessive land coverage.” Across the country, these terms and others in the amendment are regularly applied to normal and ordinary neigbhorhoods to justify the abuse of eminent domain. For example, “obsolescence” can mean that a home has less than two full bathrooms or three full bedrooms. “Excessive land coverage” can mean that a bureaucrat thinks that a yard is “too small.”

4. Watt #13: This amendment strikes every measure of the bill that provides protection to home and business owners; thus, it eviscerates the bill’s protections.

5. Nadler #15: The bill is only effective if governments that use eminent domain for private commercial development lose federal economic development funds. Because this amendment gets rid of that penalty, it will ensure that the bill provides no real protection to home and business owners.

Thank you,

Christina Walsh
Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice
(deleted ph. #)
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org

And in other news, Gene Green(D) and most other Democrats voted against exempting the internet (and blogs like this one) from being regulated by the FEC. So my still-not-posted comments on the election could be considered an “in kind donation,” and subject me to prosecution. Because you see, I exercised my former right to free speech, without being a reporter. Because only reporters can say anything in print. Even if it’s national secrets. And Congress also wants to exempt them from prosecution for it.

I have the feeling that I’m going to hear a knock at my door in about ten years, and some very unpleasant looking gentlemen are going to ask me, “Mr. _________, would you please step outside. We have some questions we want to ask you about your blogging back in 2005.” And it isn’t going to matter a damn whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in the oval office.

Except that it will occur in five years if it’s a Dem.

UPDATE: this is how the Texas delegation voted on the bill to give freedom of speech back to the internet. While reviewing it, play “Which of These Things Is Not Like the Other?”

YEA
Barton, Joe (R) – 6th District –
Bonilla, Henry (R) – 23rd District –
Brady, Kevin (R) – 8th District –
Burgess, Michael C. (R) – 26th District –
Carter, John (R) – 31st District –
Conaway, Mike (R) – 11th District –
Cuellar, Henry (D) – 28th District –
Culberson, John (R) – 7th District –
DeLay, Tom (R) – 22nd District –
Gohmert, Louie (R) – 1st District –
Granger, Kay (R) – 12th District –
Hensarling, Jeb (R) – 5th District –
Johnson, Sam (R) – 3rd District –
Marchant, Kenny (R) – 24th District –
McCaul, Michael (R) – 10th District –
Neugebauer, Randy (R) – 19th District –
Paul, Ron (R) – 14th District –
Poe, Ted (R) – 2nd District –
Sessions, Pete (R) – 32nd District –
Thornberry, Mac (R) – 13th District –
Smith, Lamar (R) – 21st District –

NAY:
Doggett, Lloyd (D) – 10th District –
Edwards, Chet (D)- 17th District –
Gonzalez, Charlie A. (D) – 20th District –
Green, Al (D) – 9th District –
Green, Gene (D) – 29th District –
Hinojosa, Rubén (D) – 15th District –
Jackson Lee, Sheila (D) – 18th District –
Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D) – 30th District –
Ortiz, Solomon P. (D) – 27th District –

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING
Hall, Ralph (D) – 4th District –
Reyes, Silvestre (D) – 16th District –

And some folks wonder why I think the Texas Democratic Party is the American Communist Party in disguise.

–Ubu Roi