Expressing the Grave Disapproval of the House Regarding Majority Opinion of Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London

EXPRESSING THE GRAVE DISAPPROVAL OF THE HOUSE REGARDING MAJORITY OPINION OF SUPREME COURT IN KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON -- (House of Representatives - June 30, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, very much for yielding me this time.

And I rise in recognition that there is a pretty broad consensus on this floor, which I share. As I sat here and listened to the debate of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I lamented that I am neither as smart nor as articulate nor as incisive nor as humorous as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). But then again, I thought that I fell in the category of 434 others of us on this floor as well. And I adopt the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) almost in their entirety, for I have reservations about some of the whereas clauses but recognize the whereas clauses are not the gravamen, as we lawyers would say, of this resolution.

The central portion of this resolution is to address whether or not government can decide that there is a public purpose for a taking of private property and thereby make it so. My own belief is that that ought not to be the case, that there ought to be better protection for individuals and particularly, as the previous gentleman said, usually smaller individuals in terms of their power and influence; individuals who may want to retain that home that their mom or dad bought, left to them and they live in and want their kids to live there as well and see a government who says, oh, no, we think this property can be used for a better purpose. The constitutional framers were careful in addressing that issue, careful in the sense they wanted to make sure that the king could not come in and say, ``I am going to take your property.'' That was not what they thought America ought to be. They thought it ought to be a country where only under law for public use could property be taken.

I seldom find myself in agreement with the legal opinions of the Supreme Court Justices Thomas or Scalia. Neither of them will be surprised of that,

[Page: H5583]

I am sure, nor will some of my colleagues here. Nor, for that matter, do I often find myself in agreement with a number of the sponsors of this resolution. But I do tonight.

I believe, however, and I want to make this comment, as I have adopted the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), that when dealing with the court at any level, we frankly should be more temperate than we have been. I think this resolution, which I am going to support, is, nevertheless, premature. We have not had the opportunity to digest it, to analyze it, to determine how better we might state the resolution. But having said that, the resolution is here.

Tonight I do agree with the proponents of this legislation in disagreeing with the Supreme Court five-to-four decision. Since our Nation's founding, the protection of private property has been a bedrock principle of our society. It ought to remain so. The fifth amendment provides in relevant part, as has been quoted, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' That amendment, of course, does not prohibit all takings, nor should it. Instead, it permits the government to take private property so long as it has a good public use for the land and so long as it provides just compensation. However, in this decision, the Court's majority greatly weakened, in my opinion, this basic constitutional principle. It held that a public use could be defined more broadly as a ``public purpose.'' I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts's (Mr. Frank) finding irony in the positions with reference to activism on the courts, for after all in this case, the Court deferred to the legislature. But, in fact, the Constitutional Framers said not even the legislature, not even the people's representatives, could take property unless it was for a public use. I agree with that proposition and therefore disagree with this decision.

As Justice O'Connor wrote in dissent: ``Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.''

We do not want to leave our citizens vulnerable in that position. As a result, I will join my colleagues in voting for this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov