Senator Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced bill [link|http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/doc_archive/jc_other/PHSB%20and%20PPA%202005%20billtext.pdf|S.1313] to limit eminent domain abuse.

[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063001082.html|The House has voted] to deny federal funds to any city abuseing eminent domain in the Kelo fashion.

Excerpts:

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...

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.).

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."

[link|http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49773|Full transcript]
of Pelosi's bizarre remarks

Excerpt:

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

I say:

Property is property, theft is theft, the Supreme Court is *not* God, the Nancy Pelosi *is* a stupid, stupid bitch.

Concerned citizens, check out [link|http://www.castlecoalition.org/|the Castle Coalition]

[link|http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002953M|The League of Private Property Voters's rankings] of politicians' voting records






[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/politics.american.html#20050703|Angelfire link] (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/politics.american.html#20050703

[link|http://fnmarlowe.blogspot.com/2005/07/where-politicians-stand-on-kelo.html|Comment at blogger.com]

and building upon them with ever worse decisions.

It doesn't matter when this started. It only matters how soon it stops. The sooner the better.

The trouble with changing the law is an activist court will simply declare the new law "unconstitutional" and then where are you?

Okay, maybe that wouldn't be too bad. Think of it as a first salvo in a grand conflict between the judges and the people. Or a last chance for the judges to knock it off before we throw the lot on jail for treason. Something that should have been dealt with long ago will finally get dragged out into the open. The separation of powers will reassert itself, backed up by the express will of the people.

I'm betting Bush will put up a couple of strict constitutionalists for the Supreme Court, the usual gang of hypocrites will cry "extremists!" the party of no-vision will filibuster, and the battle lines will be drawn. Come November 2006 they'll all find out what the score *really* is.

I have an idea about political revolutions that turn out well. They tend to be based on a desire to protect the rights and liberties of the revolutionaries against some recent effort to usurp same. All the changes they bring about are calculated to increase the protection for these customary rights. In other words, they're conservative revolutions. This was the case with the American Revolution. The various upheavals of England were in part for the same reasons. No one bothers to reduce the monarch's power except when he gets too out of hand. Then he's liable to get his head chopped off, and his successor finds he has a bit less leeway than any of his predecessors had. I doubt we're in for another revolution in this country, but if we are, we'll win this one too.

And no, the Left is not invited. Their revolutions always turn to shit in a hurry.