Congressman Spencer Bachus Representing Alabama’s 6th District, photo of the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge

From the Office of Congressman Spencer Bachus
The 6th District of Alabama

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, July 01, 2005
 
 
Printer-Friendly Version
 

FIRST STEPS TAKEN TO COMBAT SUPREME

 COURT THREAT TO PROPERTY RIGHTS

 


WASHINGTON- The United States House of Representatives passed a resolution late last night expressing its disapproval of the recent Supreme Court decision that nullified the traditional protections afforded private property owners.  Congressman Bachus was an original co-sponsor of this legislation and issued the following statement regarding its passage:

 

“The Supreme Court ruling allows unrestrained seizure by local governments of private property for economic development under the guise of eminent domain.  This decision constitutes little more than a land grab; all of us are threatened by this,” said Congressman Bachus. 

 

“This is one more example of activist judges substituting their personal prejudices for the plain language of the Constitution.  This time, they are replacing the clear and unambiguous words ‘public use’ in the Constitution with ‘public purpose’ to erode our private property rights.”

 

“The Court claims it does not want to second guess local government; however, it makes decisions everyday that do just that.  The Court second guesses law enforcement agencies, local school boards and Boy Scout troops.  The fact is, these judges are not for individual rights,” Bachus continued.

 

“Today’s resolution is the first step in our concerted effort to protect property owners.  In an effort to overrule this decision, I’ll continue working with my colleagues in the House to find a long-term solution,” Bachus concluded.

 

Congressman Bachus is also an original co-sponsor of the “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005,” which was introduced yesterday.  This legislation seeks to prohibit states and political subdivisions of states from using economic development as an excuse for exercising their power of eminent domain if federal funds are to be used.

 

###