-Caveat Lector-
Good news, and while we are at it, Urge congress to also
1.) Impeach and remove fromthe Supreme Court each of the 5 Justices who
voted for this decision
2.) Start using the power the Congress has in Article 3 section 2 of the
United States Constitution to start restricting Jurisdiction of the
Courts!
Remember:More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have died in
United States Commercial Nuclear Power plant operations
visit my web site at
http://www.info-quest.org
Visit my energy page at http://www.info-quest.org/Energy.html
Check out the latest on the anwr drilling project http://www.anwr.org
visit my blog at
http://info-spectrum.blogspot.com
My ICQ# is 79071904
See the Pledge of alleginace to the flag that the 9th circuit court of
appeals doesn't want you to say.
for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto:
http://www.info-quest.org/Enumerated.html
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:57:06 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: Chad W. McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Chad W. McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [JBirch] House Votes To Undercut High Court On Property Federal
Funds Tied To Eminent Domain
House Votes To Undercut High Court On Property
Federal Funds Tied To Eminent Domain
By Mike Allen and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 1, 2005; A01
The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to
undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force
the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key
members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.
Last week's 5 to 4 decision has drawn a swift and visceral backlash
from an unusual coalition of conservatives concerned about property
rights and liberals worried about the effect on poor people, whose
property is often vulnerable to condemnation because it does not
generate a lot of revenue.
The House measure, which passed 231 to 189, would deny federal funds to
any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to
sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a
hotel or mall. Historically, eminent domain has been used mainly for
public purposes such as highways or airports.
The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, would apply to
funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.)
and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said they will push for a more
inclusive measure that would apply to all federal funds.
A fact sheet said under the bill the locality or state would "lose any
federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the
property would be taken for."
The vote marks the latest of several congressional moves to curb a
judiciary that some lawmakers consider out of touch with average
Americans. It came as conservative groups attacked a month-old
bipartisan deal that ended Senate filibusters of several appellate
court nominees and as some legislators anxiously watched for a possible
Supreme Court retirement.
Activists said the 5 to 4 ruling will be a centerpiece of their efforts
to motivate conservatives and libertarians for a confirmation fight
after a vacancy opens on the court. "It's so bad, it's good," said Sean
Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, which works
closely with the White House.
DeLay called it "a horrible decision" and said lawmakers' intervention
is part of an effort to "assert the responsibility and the authority of
the Congress to be a check on the judiciary."
"This Congress is not going to just sit by -- idly sit by -- and let an
unaccountable judiciary make these kinds of decisions without taking
our responsibility and our duty given to us by the Constitution to be a
check on the judiciary," he said during a rare appearance in the House
Radio-Television Gallery.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) introduced a similar measure and immediately
drew a Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), as well as Sen.
Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is number three in his party's leadership.
The House bill is sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). Its Democratic co-sponsors include Reps.
John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Peter A. DeFazio
(Ore.).
The conservative Family Research Council sent an e-mail urging
followers to contact their lawmakers to support the legislation. The
council said the decision "strips the rights of private citizens by
granting the government power to seize your home and transfer it to a
private developer."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure.
"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme
Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she
told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of
powers in our Constitution."
Sensenbrenner said last week's decision, Kelo v. City of New London ,
"has the potential of becoming the Dred Scott decision of the 21st
century." He was referring to the 1857 ruling that affirmed slaves as
private property, even when they had escaped to non-slave states.
Rhetoric was just as sharp at a gathering here of conservative
activists urging the Senate to confirm U.S. appellate court nominee
Henry W. Saad of Michigan. Victoria Toensing of the Committee for
Justice accused Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) of waging "a vendetta"
against Saad, noting that the nominee is Arab American, as is his
advocate, former senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.). Asked if she was
suggesting that Levin's being Jewish had a role in his actions,
Toensing replied: "I don't know. I know these are two Arab Americans,
and you'll have to ask that of Senator Levin." Levin had no immediate
response.
The Supreme Court ruling allows local governments to force property
owners to sell and make way for private economic development when
government officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the
property is not blighted and the new project's success is not
guaranteed. The ruling greatly broadened the types of projects for
which the government may seize property to include not only bridges and
highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution.
Opponents say property owners should not be forced to sell to make way
for private commercial projects.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) praised the amendment,
introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), as "an important first step"
and said he is "extremely disappointed and surprised that the House
Democratic leadership voted against this amendment."
Sensenbrenner said at the news conference with DeLay that federal money
"will not be used to finance taking somebody's property from them to
build a strip mall or a hotel or something simply because more tax
revenue will come in as a result of an improvement." He said the
decision "shows that the majority of the court had an utter disrespect
for private property."
Blunt said, "Lots of members are hearing from the people they work for
that this is an unacceptable intrusion."
In the roll call on the House amendment, 192 Republicans voted for and
31 against, with 39 Democrats voting for and 157 against. The lone
independent, Rep. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), voted against. Maryland and
Virginia lawmakers voted with their parties except Rep. C.A. Dutch
Ruppersberger (D-Md.), who voted in favor, and Reps. Frank R. Wolf
(R-Va.) and Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who voted against.
http://www.washingtonpost
com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063001082_pf.html
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
-Caveat Lector-
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 7/1/2005
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
