« The Final Arbiter | Main | Hate is Stronger Than Love in Some People »
June 23, 2005
Bye Bye Private Property
In the ongoing obliteration of the written Constitution, the Supreme Court has rendered the 5th amendment meaningless. (More here) I haven't seen the actual decision and dissent yet, but it's clear from the articles that the Supreme Court has just decided that government can take your private property to give to another private person simply by declaring that this is "for the public good". Interestingly, while this decision goes with the previous decision on medical marijuana (that is, that activity conducted by one person entirely within one state and involving no exchange of value is "interstate commerce" because Congress says it is), the lineup of votes was somewhat different.
Here is what the fifth amendment says, by the way:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So what the Supreme Court has just said is that the point I emphasized above serves to limit government only in that the government has to pay for the property - at a value it sets.
I believe that it is inevitable that people will, at some point soon, begin to resist the government in cases like this with armed force. A "rule of law" that doesn't protect individuals obligates them to protect themselves. It would be better to call a Constitutional convention, or to amend the Constitution to strictly limit the powers of government (by removing the ability of the Court to expansively interpret the Constitution to mean anything they want it to), but there is little apparent support for this course. Natural human frustration, then, will lead where it will, as it generally does.
UPDATE: More from Dale Franks, Glenn Reynolds (more here), David Bernstein, Kevin Aylward, Orin Kerr, Jay (Accidental Verbosity), Captain Ed, Will Collier and others.
On thinking more about this, there are two things I find even worse than the thought that our Constitution as written is meaningless: the Court just handed city officials everywhere the ultimate fundraising tool, because the opportunity for corruption inherent in city officials selling your property for campaign cash is unlimited; and we've tried in the West a system where the wealthy can simply expropriate land at need, reducing the non-wealthy to indentured tenants in fact if not in word - it's called feudalism, and it didn't work out too well, all things considered.
I have to hand it to the Supreme Court: in the past year they've managed to so debase the Constitution as to make me a supporter of the right of secession from the United States. I've certainly become convinced in fact of what I had mentioned often before in theory: we need a Constitutional Convention.
UPDATE (6/24): Lots more reaction to the Kelo decision here.
And as I noted yesterday, it's only a matter of time before the incursion of the State run up against someone like Francis Porretto.
UPDATE (6/24): I can't resist, sorry: this brings a whole new meaning to the "takings" clause. Good parody by My Pet Jawa.
Also, Steven Taylor at PoliBlog has a fine post on the topic:
In short: this radically increases the power of local governments and diminishes individual rights–indeed, gives local governments the power to seize the homes of private citizens because said government thinks it is a good idea.I however, think it is a pretty bad idea
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/250
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bye Bye Private Property:
» Supreme Court Eviscerates the Notion of Private Property Rights in America from Blogs of War
Have a home on nice corner lot? Better hope that a fast food chain doesn't take an interest in it. Live near an airport? Holiday Inn would love to build a high-rise hotel where your home now stands. Corrupt, cheaply bought, local officials hold your fa... [Read More]
Tracked on June 23, 2005 4:56 PM
» I Used To Own A House from Hold The Mayo
You and I no longer own homes. We occupy them. We pay the bank every month for the privilege of living there as long as the government wants to let us. [Read More]
Tracked on June 23, 2005 5:18 PM
Comments
You mentioned the proverbial "nuking of the problem" with a Constitutional Convention that I had thought of mentioning originally and not put in this time. My first thought was to write the post as more of an obituary for the Constitution. My second thought was to suggest it's time time for that revolutionary of a change.
My suggestion that it'd be our grandchildren finally going through with it was the result of my discussing the issue with Deb.
Posted by: Jay at June 23, 2005 5:16 PM
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I know what this is supposed to mean. But given the hair splitting and sophism of the government interventionists, this is just not good enough. What this should say is: given that the right to property is an essential component of any free society and one of the several, but not exhaustive, rights that governments are instituted to secure, congress shall make no law abridging the right of property, unless fpr purposes of national security 2/3 of the state or federal legisture (depending on jurisdiction) shall approve.
Posted by: phil at June 23, 2005 8:20 PM
Freedom of speech? Why in all damnation should I give two pennies, about the right to squeal like a pig, as I am to be lead from my pen? Freedom to speak my mind? So others can profess their sympathies as they stand by and watch? Freedom of expression? Am I to be grateful for the right to express my unfortunate circumstances in some artistic way, so that I might please my fellow Americans insatiable thirst for visual dramatics? Is it my right to be heard? Or my right to be part of the herd? That will please my handlers, and those who have yet to be handled? Freedom to voice my opinion? When the opinion of five supreme court rulers is that I have no opinion? Freedom of representation? By those who seem to have only self interest on their minds? Freedom, Liberty and Justice for all? Except for me? Private property is not the gateway to freedom. It is freedom! And the right to security in homeownership belongs in our federal constitution and was not to be left to the discretions of our states.
Ownership of property gives no more right to suffrage then not, but those who have properties in land and those who design to achieve it were to be protected in our federal constitution as well as those who don’t and will not, and to take away the right of security in ownership of real property or even the thought to acquire in security the same, is as intrusive on the minds and persons of man, as it is oppressive on man’s possessions in mind, for to place mind over matter is to dispose of what matters in mind. Is not freedom of the press a matter of persons in mind? And is not the placements of the presses to be a matter to mind? And is not the securities of freedom of speech, and liberty, also reliant upon places of security from whence to speak your mind? How is it that freedom of speech is to be given more refuge and relevancy in our federally constitutionalized bill of rights then the freedom and security of one of the most prized possession in liberty and opportunity? our homes, our sanctuaries. Are we now only to be secure in the possessions we are to carry on our persons? And does not the removal of this enumerated right to be secure in one’s home divide this country and its people? Are now our separate states to be allowed to decide the treatments of our liberties in property with deference, or others with indifference? And did not the abhorrent days of slavery in some states, and in some not, divide this country and its people? And will not this new form of servitude, oppression and enslavement of our labors divide us as well?
This country has taken a dreadfully wrong turn in the guardianship of its own freedoms. There are now so many ways in which states will be allowed to abuse the rights and liberties of its citizens in property, and so many ways for state legislators to profess and proclaim inadequate and insufficient means of protecting our inalienable and federally constitutionalized and subsequently enumerated rights in property ownership as to confuse, perplex and bewilder the American people to such a degree that they will not be able to discern whether they are coming or going or just being made to pack up and leave! And the right to be secure in home ownership has now been given up to the ultimate state lottery, pick a number and hope the next little white ping pong ball inline has the other guys numeral.
Most of the thirteen states at the time of the adoption of our federal constitution had their own sovereign constitutions. So ask yourselves this. Why did the continental congress address property rights at all? and why did state legislators petition the continental congress in regards to a bill of rights and its afforded protections in property? and why did the American people petition their state legislators to the same, when all had their own sovereign forms of property protections and most their own separate and sovereign constitutions? It was because the American people had the all to recent hindsights of insufferable insecurity and oppression, and knew all to well that the protections of their private property, and country and homes, needed to be of a united purpose, and not of the separate reasoning of their separate states.
John Merritt Burns of North Aurora IL. my phone# 630-892-4608
Posted by: John Merritt Burns at November 30, 2005 4:19 AM