June 24, 2005

Bryant Responds on Kelo Questions

Former U.S. Rep. Ed Bryant, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, has answered the six questions I posed Thursday regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London. I posed the six questions on this blog and also in an email to all six candidates running for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, promising to post their responses verbatim. Bryant chose to respond to all six questions in the form of a single essay. Here is his response...

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London takes a radical turn on the important issue of private property rights. The ruling is a blow to our Constitution’s 5th Amendment, and I believe it is devastating to private property rights. The court got it wrong!

Traditionally, state and local government could acquire private property, even against the owner’s will, through its eminent domain authority. This power was limited strictly to projects clearly within the realm of the greater public use, such as highways, utilities, schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. This Kelo decision expands the public use requirement so that the eminent domain power now is available for the purpose of boosting economic growth and tax revenue through commercial development.

The effect of this is to permit one’s home to be taken over objection and be converted to a private store or office building.

This 5-4 decision is a far-reaching, dangerous precedent and creates a gaping hole in the 5th Amendment and private property rights in America. I agree with the sentiments of Justice O’Connor in her dissent when she argued, "cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers."

Our Founding Fathers understood that liberty was intimately tied to private property rights. John Adams said, "The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."

I believe we have a legal and moral duty to protect the private property interests of all Americans. When I served in Congress, I was committed to standing up for the rights of property owners, and will continue to work to limit government infringement of property rights as the next U.S. Senator from Tennessee.

Finally, the Kelo decision shows that court appointments matter. With my legal background, I’m in a unique position to actually serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. There I can have a major impact on the confirmation of judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. We must confirm judges who understand and appreciate that freedom to own property IS a constitutional right, not to be impaired by a government able to seize your home for the benefit of those with power and political influence.

-30-