Do you agree that Conyers should not be with Delay on Eminent Domain?

[LittleClarkie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063001082.html

Legislators Move to Blunt Eminent Domain Ruling

By Mike Allen and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 30, 2005; 4:15 PM

Legislators Move to Blunt Eminent Domain Ruling

By Mike Allen and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 30, 2005; 4:15 PM

Key leaders of both parties in both chambers of Congress vowed today to use the power of the purse to negate this week's Supreme Court ruling allowing local and state governments to use eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes.

Bills introduced in the House and Senate would yank federal funds from any city or state project that forced people to sell their property to make way for a project like a hotel or strip mall.

snippage

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said he will introduce a Private Property Rights Protection Act that will prohibit any state or municipality from using federal funds for any project in which economic development is used as a justification for exercising eminent domain.

snippage

A committee description said the locality or state would "lose any federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the property would be taken for." The lead Democratic sponsor is Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, and the committee said at least two other Democrats are co-sponsors.



---------------
Someone over at Kos is calling for Conyers to remove himself because this is a bill put forth by Delay and Sensenbrenner and because Pelosi is on the other side of the issue.

That's a gross simplification, mind you, but what do y'all think? Do you agree with Delay and Sensenbrenner and Conyers, or do you side with Pelosi, and call for Conyers to remove himself?

It seems like eminent domain is a hot potato issue on both sides of the aisle.

[charlyvi]

1. I think Conyers should go with his conscience.

If he is for this bill, he should sponsor it.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

3. I'm not completely sure Delay is on the bill, but he backs Sensenbrenner

and his efforts.

It seems like a kneejerk to have a fit because Conyers and two people we don't really like might agree here. As someone said, even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

[wurzel]

4. Should talk about Bush and how Eminent Domain got him a fortune.

[navvet]

5. The right thing to do, is the right thing to do

and defanging this ridiculous court decision is the proper thing to do.

:kick:

[rogue emissary]

6. "It proves once again, Conyers will stick up for the little guy."

I haven't seen a lot about the bill. Those that side with the government being able to force you to sell your property are on the losing said of this debate.

Concerning Delay, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[cally]

7. I trust Conyers

He can do whatever he wants and he still has my support. It also shows that Dems are against this SC decision so the issue won't be used against us as much.

[housewolf]

8. I think all reps and senators should do what they think is right

I wish there were more occurances of reps and senators suportting and opposing issues according to how they truly believe. I do not believe the congressional policies of pressuring a party-line stance is correct.

Of course, there is a fallacy in my reasoning - and that is that my position is based on the idea that any rep or senator actually CAN vote his or her conscious. In today's environment of "access for sale" and "influence for sale", it's pretty much a moot point that reps and senators really can vote their conscious on almost any issue.

[johnaries]

9. Obey made the best point in the article. Yanking Fed funds is not the

answer. That's like Andrew Jackson's remark "The Chief Justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it".

What they need is new legislation. First propose some legislation limiting eminent domain, and then Conyers and the others can switch with a clear conscience and without losing face in front of their constituents.

[Vinca]

10. Hell is freezing over because I agree with the Republicans on this one.

That was the worst SCOTUS decision in decades. Frankly, I'm surprised the Republicans are all upset about it. They usually have their noses up the behinds of corporate America and seizing private property for private, commercial use is like Christmas to big "bidness."

[LittleClarkie]

11. Okay to be fair, here is something I missed the first time on that diary

at Kos.

The guy's argument is this:

"Imagine - Congress could deny federal dollars to any city or county that does not prominently display the ten commandments in their courthouses. Congress could deny federal dollars to any city or county who didn't open the public school day with prayer. Congress could deny federal dollars to law enforcement agencies who obey court orders if Congress doesn't like the court order (see also: Terry Schiavo). Those seem pretty egregious, but if John Conyers supports this type of bill, then precedent has been clearly set."

I think he's worried about the dangerous precedent this sets.