Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 - Declares that the power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use, which shall not be construed to include economic development. Applies such limitation to all exercises of eminent domain by the federal government or by state and local governments through the use of federal funds.
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3083 Introduced in House (IH)]
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3083
To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights,
by limiting the power of eminent domain.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 28, 2005
Mr. Rehberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights,
by limiting the power of eminent domain.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protection of Homes, Small
Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The protection of homes, small businesses, and other
private property rights against government seizures and other
unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle
and core commitment of our Nation's Founders.
(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 6, 1816, the
protection of such rights is ``the first principle of
association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of
his industry, and the fruits acquired by it''.
(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution
specifically provides that ``private property'' shall not ``be
taken for public use without just compensation''.
(4) The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential
guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent
domain, by permitting government to seize private property only
``for public use''.
(5) On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court
issued its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108.
(6) As the Court acknowledged, ``it has long been accepted
that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole
purpose of transferring it to another private party B'', and
that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may
be used only ``for public use''.
(7) The Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that
government may seize the home, small business, or other private
property of one owner, and transfer that same property to
another private owner, simply by concluding that such a
transfer would benefit the community through increased economic
development.
(8) The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as
Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion,
joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the
Court has ``effectively . . . delete[d] the words `for public
use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment'' and
thereby ``refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal
Constitution''.
(9) Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor
warns, ``[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property.
Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with
a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with
a factory''.
(10) Justice O'Connor further warns that, under the Court's
decision in Kelo, ``[a]ny property may now be taken for the
benefit of another private party'', and ``the fallout from this
decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be
those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the
political process, including large corporations and development
firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to
transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with
more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result''.
(11) As an amicus brief filed by the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other
organizations noted, ``[a]bsent a true public use requirement
the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings
that result will disproportionately affect and harm the
economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and
ethnic minorities and the elderly''.
(12) It is appropriate for Congress to take action,
consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to
restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to
protect homes, small businesses, and other private property
rights against unreasonable government use of the power of
eminent domain.
(13) It would also be appropriate for States to take action
to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the
Court in Kelo noted, ``nothing in our opinion precludes any
State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the
takings power''.
SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND OTHER PRIVATE
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
(a) In General.--The power of eminent domain shall be available
only for public use.
(b) Public Use.--In this Act, the term ``public use'' shall not be
construed to include economic development.
(c) Application.--This Act shall apply to--
(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal
Government; and
(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and
local government through the use of Federal funds.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H5369)
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line