Kelo shouldn’t be Congress’ pri­or­ity

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

ThoughIa­maRepub­li­can­who­con­sid­er­s­the Supreme Court’s de­ci­sion in Kelo v. New Lon­don­to­bee­gre­gious,Ire­spect­ful­ly­dis­agree­with the edi­to­rial “Pass the em­i­nent do­main bill.” (Edi­to­ri­als,Nov.27edi­tion)Con­gressshoul­dat­tend­toother­pri­or­i­ties,suchas­pass­ingth­er­est of the fis­cal 2007 bud­get bills, dur­ing the lim­it­ed­timeavail­ableinthe109thCongress’lame­duck ses­sion.

As I re­mem­ber, in Kelo v. New Lon­don, the court­saidthat­state­and­lo­cal­go­v­ern­mentshave no con­sti­tu­tional bar­rier to ex­er­cis­ing em­i­nent do­main in or­der to re­sell prop­erty taken for the pur­pose­o­fur­banre­de­vel­op­ment.The­court­did not­specif­i­cal­ly­di­rect­thatthis­bedone;iton­lyde- niedthe­p­lain­tiffre­dressinthe­courts.State­and lo­cal gov­ern­ments around the coun­try have been busy pass­ing laws, in­clud­ing state con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments, to for­bid use of em­i­nent do­main in this way.

Thi­sis­their­right—in­deed,theirduty,inmy opin­ion.LetCon­gress­fo­cu­son­tru­e­na­tion­alis­sues, not on what prop­erly should be the purview of state gov­ern­ments. The In­hofe bill can be ex­pected to resur­face in the 110th Congress and can be ad­dressed then if a na­tional agenda al­lows time. David M. Hudel­son Horse Shoe, North Carolina

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.