On the recordJuly 23, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, the protection of private ownership of property is vital to individual freedom and national prosperity. It is also one of the most fundamental constitutional principles, as the Founders enshrined property rights protections throughout the Constitution, including in the Fifth Amendment, which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This clause created two conditions to the government taking private property: first, the subsequent use of the property must be for the use of the public and, second, that the government must pay the owner just compensation for the property. However, more than a decade ago the Supreme Court, in the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision, expanded the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent domain powers beyond what is allowed by the text of the Constitution, by allowing government to seize property under the vague guise of economic development, even when the public use turns out to be nothing more than the generation of tax revenues by another private party after the government takes property from private individuals and gives it to another private entity. As the dissenting Justices observed, by defining public use so expansively, the result of the Kelo decision is, effectively, to delete the words ``for public use'' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.…





