The Supreme Court's recent Kelo decision took private property from one person and gave it to another person. As I often say when asked about the issue: I know some good politicians and some bad politicians. I know some good lawyers and some bad lawyers. I don't know any politician or lawyer who should be able to take away your home. That is why I introduced a bill in the Senate that would restrict Eminent Domain at the state's Constitutional level.

Until recently, the private property rights of North Carolina citizens were protected under the Fifth Amendment. This fundamental freedom was attacked across the nation by the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. City of New London. This split decision, allowing government to take private property for economic development, is an assault on our freedom and security as citizens of this nation. Many agree that this controversial court decision infringes upon the natural rights of American citizens, increasing the power of government and scaling back the rights of citizens.

I believe that private property ownership provides an opportunity for economic advancement. Private property ownership allows business to grow and the economy to improve - a result that benefits all North Carolinians. The government should not be allowed to force a small business, homeowner, or any other private property owner from his or her land. While the decision has been made in Washington, my Constitutional Amendment would protect the property rights our Founders intended, preventing state government and local governments from unfairly seizing your property.

Annexation: Our nation is founded upon the rights and freedoms of the individual, including private property rights. Establishing rules and guidelines for property use is sometimes desirable, but we should take care not to change the rules in the middle of the game without the consent of the players. Our citizens make decisions about the purchase of their homes, their investment in real estate, and the location of their businesses based upon the rules, limitations, and other factors in place at the time. To subsequently change the rules without consent is not only unfair, but may increase their costs of ownership or effectively take away or diminish their value or enjoyment of their private property. Forced annexation can result in these negative impacts of higher costs, increased restrictions, and diminished value. Fred Smith believes in the protection of private property rights. Citizens should have a voice in forced annexation or other actions that negatively impact these rights. The annexing authority should make the case to the voters and receive their approval before challenged annexation is approved.