Eminent Domain Resolution
It was my goal to see a resolution similar to this pass at both Republican and Democratic conventions nationwide. I have yet to speak to anyone of any party affiliation who thinks it would be a good thing to allow government to take private property on the weakest of pretexts, particularly when the goal is to benefit one private party at the expense of another. Yet this is exactly what the Supreme Court recently agreed to allow.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe this resolution ever made it to the floor at our state convention, although it passed with overwhelming support at my precinct and county conventions. My resolution is largely based on House Resolution 340, offered by Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA 11th) a week after the Supreme Court’s decision. Unfortunately, his resolution died in committee.
EMINENT DOMAIN RESOLUTION
Whereas the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation;â€
Whereas upon adoption, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the application of the Fifth Amendment to each and every state and local government;
Whereas the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment has historically been interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court to be conditioned upon the necessity that Government assumption of private property through eminent domain must be for the public use and requires just compensation;
Whereas the opinion of the Supreme Court majority in Kelo et al. v. City of New London, et al. renders the public use provision in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment without meaning;
Whereas the opinion of the Supreme Court majority in Kelo et al. v. city of New London et. al. justifies the forfeiture of a person’s private property through eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private person;
Now, therefore be it resolved that:
(1) The Texas Democratic Party will press for and support legislation that stipulates that:
A. State and local governments should only execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the public good in accordance with the Fifth Amendment;
B. State and local governments must always justly compensate those individuals whose property is assumed through eminent domain in accordance with the Fifth Amendment;
C. Any execution of eminent domain by state and local government that does not serve the public good and justly compensate individuals according to the Fifth Amendment is an usurpation of the individual property rights as defined in the Fifth Amendment;
D. Eminent domain should never be used to give advantage to one private party over another;
E. No state or local government should construe the holdings of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., as justification to abuse the power of eminent domain; and
F. Congress maintains the perogative ad reserves the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by state and local government in light of the ruling in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.