http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html

Some say the Federal Govt. is expanding its powers to interfere with states' rights. But when it comes to protecting private property, I'm willing to make a few sacrifices.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

It's been a while since a bill was passed that I completely agree with in its entirety. I'll be interested in reading who voted against this and thinks the government should be able to take your property for any reason.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Liberals voted for it too? Wow...

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

use eminent domain. It's loved equally by Dems and Reps.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

...actually doing something constructive for a change...

I disapprove of the Kelo case and I recognize that it is a distortion of the implied right of eminent domain, but the action on the part of the House is wrong. People pay lip service to states' rights, but when states don't do what we would like, many of us are willing to abandon our beliefs to fulfill our preferences.

If people don't like the Kelo case, as I don't, then we need to elect people on the state level who won't act on the decision, and we need to elect people on the federal leval who will nominate judges who won't intentionally distort our constitution.

If the House is successful, it will be true that the government will have complete control over the states and the concept of states' rights will be a dead letter.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

If this is true, then hasn't it already happened? Congress has passed similar laws in the past (e.g. refusing federal highway money to states that don't raise their minimum drinking age to 21). Or, is there something more to this law than the little I read about it in Rebellion's snippet?

Agreed. Withholding federal funds isn't infringing (or should that be "abridging"....) state's rights. The states are free to take the land if they're willing to do without federal funds.

The problematic language I see is that the bill would cut off *all* federal economic development aid for two years if the state or locality uses "economic development" as a rationale for seizing land. That strikes me as a little broad, threatening retaliation in unrelated areas.

I'm also glad to see states taking steps to limit this practice.

__________________
Man up.