Passage of the Private Property Rights Protection Act

PASSAGE OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT -- (House of Representatives - November 03, 2005)

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was proud to cast a firm vote in support of the Private Property Rights Protection Act. While this measure will not reverse the Supreme Court's mind-boggling 5-4 decision in the Kelo v. New London case, it will ensure that American taxpayers will not have their hard-earned dollars used in its support.

No State or locality shall be permitted to employ the power of eminent domain to seize private property in the name of economic development. In addition, the bill will grant appropriate access to State and Federal courts for those who seek justice and remedy for any nonmeritorious seizure of their property.

There is no question that Americans do not wish to shirk their responsibility to take care of their community through support for measures which serve the public good. However, most do not view fulfillment of this obligation as necessitating a forfeiture of their fundamental rights. Few rights are as central to the foundation of our great Nation as is the right of control over one's private property.

As James Madison laid out in the Federalist Papers, private property rights lie at the foundation of our Constitution: ``Government is instituted no less for the protection of property than of the persons of individuals.''

Madison's declaration was echoed by Justice William Paterson in Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance (1795) when he asserted: ``The right of acquiring and possessing private property and having it protected is one of the most natural, inherent, and inalienable rights of man.

This does not require one to have expertise in constitutional law to conclude from these statements that the Framers did not intend for citizens to cede their ``natural, inherent, and inalienable rights'' in the name of expanding the local tax base or in the development of one of our favorite Starbucks or Wal-Marts.

As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, the text of the fifth amendment permits the taking of property ``only if in the public right to employ it.''

In response to the public concern of the Kelo decision, the Ohio State legislature recently passed a measure prohibiting cities from seizing unblighted land for economic development in 2006. And Ohio is not alone. Excluding bills prefiled for the 2006 legislative session, the National Council of State Legislatures found that 12 States have already taken legislative steps to prohibit in some form or fashion the use of eminent domain in private property seizure.

Today, we join in the fight on behalf of all Americans who own or aspire to own their small piece of paradise and, more importantly, to own it without fear from unwarranted, unjustified, and unconstitutional seizure.

http://thomas.loc.gov