U.S. Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. 26th District of Texas

Related Links

Judiciary

Eminent Domain
I am strongly opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London. Our Fifth Amendment rights are stated clearly in the Constitution - private property cannot be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. New London case sets a dangerous precedent and undermines America's private property rights. My Congressional colleagues and I are in the process of looking at a number of legislative fixes. Senator John Cornyn, the Junior Senator from Texas and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, has introduced legislation in the Senate to address this issue.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 3135, Private Property Rights Protection Act, authored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). H.R. 3135 prohibits the use of federal funds for any projects in which states and localities use eminent domain for economic development purposes. Additionally, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds to enforce the eminent domain power over that project. Also prohibits the federal government from using economic development as a reason for exercising its power of eminent domain.”

I also voted in favor of H.Res. 340, which expressed the House of Representatives' strong disapproval of the majority opinion. The resolution also indicates the House of Representatives' agreement with the dissenting opinion authored by retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. H.Res. 340 was passed by the House by a vote of 365-33 on June 30, 2005.

Federal Judges
As a strict constitutionalist, I am often frustrated by decisions, issued by activist judges. I believe that it is the federal judiciary's job to interpret the Constitution, not to legislate from the bench. Since federal judges have lifetime tenure, it is especially important that the Senate confirm judges who share these values. The Kelo v. New London decision underscores the importance of this issue.

Two of the most fundamental constitutional principals upon which our government is built are the separation of powers between the three branches of government and the system of checks and balances that prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. The legislative branch check established by the U.S. Constitution over the judicial branch is the "advice and consent" requirement. According to the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are appointed to the bench for a life term. For that reason, and to prevent the appointment of unqualified individuals, the founding fathers included a clause in the Constitution requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate for federal judicial nominees.

The 109th Congress will likely have the opportunity to confirm a number of federal judges. I will continue to support President Bush’s judicial nominees and will urge my Senate colleagues to confirm judges that will abide by these strict constitutionalist values. This Congress has recently confirmed two justices to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito. Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed on September 29, 2005, by a vote of 78-22. Justice Alito was confirmed on January 31, 2006, but a vote of 58-42.

Litigation Reform
As part of The White House Conference on the Economy, held in 2004 on December 15 & 16th in Washington, DC, President Bush indicated that litigation reform - including medical liability reform, class action reform, and asbestos reform - is high on his list of priorities for his second term.

I believe it is extremely important for individuals to have a legal recourse to address injuries; however, our current system is rampant with abuse. As a result of this abuse, American consumers must pay higher prices for goods and services, including medical services, and receive diminished returns on retirement plans. This abuse has many negative effects, including diminished economic growth and more limited access to critical health care.

I will support legislation that will curb this abuse while protecting the rights of American citizens to seek reasonable redress for their injuries.

Identity Theft
Identity theft is an emerging threat to our individual and collective financial health, particularly to residents in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

In an effort to reduce the burdens of identity theft on businesses and consumers, the 108th Congress passed legislation that will help deter identity theft, by strengthening penalties for those who steal identities and will help prevent identity theft, by allowing consumers to gain one free credit report per year from each of the credit reporting agencies. This will allow consumers to monitor their financial records to ensure their accuracy.

I will continue to closely monitor this important issue.

USA Patriot Act
Over the last few years, Congress and the Bush Administration have put a tremendous amount of effort into protecting our homeland from terrorists. With these new protections came a number of new policies that were seen by some as an infringement on our civil rights. The USA Patriot Act gave law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community the flexibility they need to pursue terrorists and bring them to justice. It was intended to do so while continuing to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens.

As you may know, H.R. 3199, The USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, was introduced by Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) on July 11, 2005. Prior to the introduction of H.R. 3199, the House Judiciary Committee held 12 bipartisan hearings to review issues related to reauthorization of the Patriot Act. H.R. 3199 permanently reauthorizes many of the expiring provisions in the Patriot Act. After several extensions, H.R. 3199 was signed into law on March 9, 2006 (P.L. 109-177).

The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to use many of the same tools that have been used to fight organized crime and drug dealers to fight terrorists. Specifically, the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to conduct surveillance against more crimes of terror, such as the use of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, allows Federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection, and allows law enforcement to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.

I voted in favor of H.R. 3199 because I believe this law is effectively thwarting terrorism as it protects our civil rights. I will continue to review and evaluate it as it is implemented.

For more information, please visit the following websites:

U.S. Department of Justice
FBI's Most Wanted
Department of Homeland Security
Texas Courts
Public Safety and Law at firstgov.gov