the voters of Arizona rejected this. If the bill passes it will reverse decisions of very conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 1993 decision, Chief Justice Rhenquist and Justice Scalia and every member of the Supreme Court reaffirmed 2 basic Fifth amendment principles. Takings can only be decided based on the impact on an overall parcel of property, not just the affected portion. And, and this is extremely important, particularly to this debate, Justice Rhenquist, Justice Scalia, and every member of the Supreme Court said diminution in the value of property is insufficient to demonstrate a taking. I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is taking a very reasoned approach to a problem we all acknowledge, and I would urge that we follow his lead and support his amendment.
Sherwood Boehlert: “the voters of Arizona rejected this. If the bill passes it will reverse decisions of very conservative members of the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a bill related to property rights and Supreme Court decisions.
Share
More from Sherwood Boehlert
Mr. Chairman, I rise to proudly and enthusiastically endorse this measure. I will tell you what it is all about. It is about my favorite four-letter word and you can use this in polite company: jobs. This is essentially a jobs bill that is…
this is an important outstanding issue that does need to be resolved, and it is my intention to address it in the final version of the bill. As Members know, H.R. 3070 as originally introduced mandates that prize contestants keep their…
I would propose in response to the gentlewoman that she withdraw the amendment and we work in the spirit of bipartisanship to refine it so we all clearly understand what we are talking about.





