Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Decline and Fall of the Right to Property: Government as Universal Landlord (Gov't Power Grab)
The Heritage Foundation ^ | October 19, 2007 | Edward J Erler, Ph.D.

Posted on 10/22/2007 10:35:32 AM PDT by khnyny

"[T]he right of acquiring and possessing property and having it protected, is one of the natural inherent and unalienable rights of man."[1]

A few years ago, one noted political reformer applauded the "demise of property as a formal constitutional limit." A new view of the right to property had, in this author's opinion, begun to replace the old constitutional formalism of the inviolable and sacred right to property. Indeed, this new conception of property "requires incursions on traditional property rights. What once defined the limits to governmental power becomes the prime subject of affirmative governmental action."[2] The object or purpose of governmental action should be the various kinds of "redistribution" that characterize the "regulatory welfare state."[3] And, this commentator concludes, "[o]nce redistribution can be held out as a public purpose, it is difficult to see how lines can be drawn defining some redistribution as, in principle, too much or the wrong kind."[4] This view of the redistributionist state--the welfare state--is premised on the discovery that the right to property is not, as Madison and the framers believed, a natural right; it is merely a "social construct."[5] As such, it has no greater value than any other social construct. And like any mere construct, it can be put in the service of human progress--a progress that is not limited by "deeply problematic" notions of "natural rights" or "limited government."[6] "It is now widely accepted," this prognosticator concludes, "that property is not a limit to legitimate governmental action, but a primary subject of it."[7] At the time, these views seemed wildly inflated--mere wishful thinking on the part of an intellectual searching for "a new conceptual framework."[8] The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), brings these comments and their rejection of the views of the American Founders--

(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: communistmanifesto; constitution; elections; heritage; kelo; privateproperty; property; propertyrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
This a rather long, but extremely informative and (imho) excellent article.

Another excerpt:

Kelo in the Court of Public Opinion

Kelo represents the reductio ad absurdum of the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence. As such, it represents the Supreme Court's indifference to protecting the right of private property, which is indicative of the contempt for property rights in much of contemporary America. The Court's opinion translated the right to private property into a doctrine of public trust. The right to property must now be considered only a conditional right; property is held on the condition that no one else can use the property in a manner that better serves a public purpose. In some very important sense the right to private property has actually been abolished.

1 posted on 10/22/2007 10:35:35 AM PDT by khnyny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: khnyny
Some of use are familiar with the second-class status of property rights in American jurisprudence. Several years ago a law student wrote a terrific article that traced the rise and fall of property rights in first the English common and then American constitutional law.
2 posted on 10/22/2007 10:44:51 AM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

Civil Rights trump individual rights, undermining freedom.

Those who invoke Civil Rights are evil.


3 posted on 10/22/2007 10:47:55 AM PDT by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untenured

Thanks for the link.

IMHO, that’s why the election in ‘08 is imperative - SCOTUS. It’s all about SCOTUS.

The Fifth Amendment was trashed with the Kelo vs. New London decision, thanks to the liberal members of our Supreme Court.


4 posted on 10/22/2007 10:49:22 AM PDT by khnyny (Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed. Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

Garbage. There is no explicit Constitutional right of private property. Amend IV and V imply it exists, and the Eighth Commandment, but private property exists at the permission of the Public. The XIVth Amend extends the possibility of private property to Corporations, also by implication. All of it exists through case law. The next question should be who or what is the Public. Hint: it isn’t you or me.


5 posted on 10/22/2007 10:49:51 AM PDT by RightWhale (50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; SheLion; Madame Dufarge; metesky; mysterio; RandallFlagg

Kelo ping


6 posted on 10/22/2007 10:51:58 AM PDT by The Ghost of Rudy McRomney ("Vote Hillary - the unanimous choice of vacuous Liberal newsreaders!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

We are all suckers. We don’t own anything. The government owns your property. Don’t pay your property taxes and see how much you own. The government has the power to take everything you have if they should so desire.

Pretty scary when you think about it.


7 posted on 10/22/2007 10:55:16 AM PDT by lone star annie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

There is no property ownership in America.


8 posted on 10/22/2007 10:55:19 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

There’s no explicit Constitutional right to food. Is it your opinion that the federal government has the right to regulate your intake?


9 posted on 10/22/2007 10:58:12 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

Heck, most of us are property renters in actuality. We rent from the government by paying property taxes. Don’t pay your property taxes and before you know it, you are evicted from land you thought was yours.


10 posted on 10/22/2007 11:01:28 AM PDT by 3catsanadog (Vote for the person at the primaries; vote for the party at the election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze; RightWhale

Food and Drug Administration.


11 posted on 10/22/2007 11:01:41 AM PDT by truthluva ("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: truthluva
So the FDA can prevent you from eating?

We're screwed.

12 posted on 10/22/2007 11:06:00 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

They can control what I eat if they choose to do just that.


13 posted on 10/22/2007 11:09:50 AM PDT by truthluva ("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

Who is authorizing this?


14 posted on 10/22/2007 11:10:15 AM PDT by freekitty ((May the eagles long fly our beautiful and free American sky.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lone star annie
Nothing new.
 
Usus Fructus

15 posted on 10/22/2007 11:13:32 AM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: truthluva

Can they prevent you from eating - food?


16 posted on 10/22/2007 11:17:48 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

[Can they prevent you from eating - food?]

Can they mandate what is and is not defined as food?


17 posted on 10/22/2007 11:20:33 AM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Garbage. There is no explicit Constitutional right of private property.

Actually, you have no rights at all if you are not prepared to shoot it out with police when they are trampled.

private property exists at the permission of the Public.

So does, say, the "right" to vote only exist by permission. Ask any Black who lived under Jim Crow. We all are sharecroppers for the elites now.
18 posted on 10/22/2007 11:23:57 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VxH
Don't know. Does the definition of food require digestibility? If not, one could eat nuts and bolts. Would that allow the FDA to regulate construction?
19 posted on 10/22/2007 11:25:29 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: khnyny

As the country moves closer and closer to communism, private property fades away. The process is gradual, so few people notice.


20 posted on 10/22/2007 11:34:08 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

>>If not, one could eat nuts and bolts.

Nature has a way of eliminating such behavior.

The FDA would only have jurisdiction if the nuts and bolts were being marketed as food or drugs.


21 posted on 10/22/2007 11:39:27 AM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of Rudy McRomney; Leftism is Mentally Deranged; khnyny
The process is gradual, so few people notice.

As more and more imaginary "rights" are sanctioned by case law, the smug winners of the moment fold into the herd headed toward the cliff, self-congratulating.

22 posted on 10/22/2007 11:41:30 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VxH
The FDA would only have jurisdiction if the nuts and bolts were being marketed as food or drugs.

But you implied the FDA can decide what is and what is not defined as food.

Can they mandate what is and is not defined as food?

Which did position you mean to take.

23 posted on 10/22/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: khnyny
Here it is, right from Part II, page 1 of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx: "... in this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: abolition of private property."

The Communist Manifesto really is worth reading. If one reads between the lines it becomes obvious that it actually is a reactionary diatribe against the bourgeosie, capitalist, trend in Europe. Not without some good reason of course, ala Charles Dickens; but hardly anything other than an atheistic nihilist reaction.

All far beyond the current crop of CFR certified politicians (Democrat AND Republican), including I'm afraid GBW.

It could (and should) be all different. The nation's fathers (not mothers) saw it.

Juvenilism, from the bawl of a baby to the whine of the college sophomore, is the move to control other people rather than face the truth, and abilities, about one's self. The Clinton's, and the Left, in a nutshell.

24 posted on 10/22/2007 11:48:38 AM PDT by jnsun (The LEFT: The need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

[Which did position you mean to take.]

Neither.

You could market your nuts and bolts as a dietary supplement.


25 posted on 10/22/2007 11:52:15 AM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

Well...actually they can control anything you eat if given the power to do so. As we move toward socialism every aspect of everyday life will be controlled as determined by our ‘leaders’.


26 posted on 10/22/2007 11:57:06 AM PDT by truthluva ("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: truthluva
The entertainment industry, whether it be computer, PCgames, television, amusement parks, theaters, etc. plays a destructive role in our demise, fueled by narcissism and the continued assault on Christian values.

Public schools no longer teach children how to think, but what to think.

And yet there’s hope. My family and I are proud patriots, and we’ll continue to live by our convictions.

27 posted on 10/22/2007 12:34:46 PM PDT by This Just In
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: khnyny
In some very important sense the right to private property has actually been abolished.

its been gone a very long time. Miss a few tax payments and you'll be shown who owns the property...

thats just one of the most obvious and blatant 'no rights' examples. look around your property and youll find countless others...

28 posted on 10/22/2007 12:54:46 PM PDT by Gilbo_3 (A few Rams must look after the sheep 'til the Good Shepherd returns...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Article V “....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

“When you ask “ who or what is the Public. Hint: it isn’t you or me.”

Well, let’s not just throw up our hands. The fact is that the constitution was written by rational people. That means that our freedoms depend on reasonable people agreeing on the meaning of words and what those words meant at the time that they were written into the constitution. Obviously, the framers of the constitution didn’t mean that “public use “ means transfer of private property to some crony of a bureaucrat. This is just another version of the “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.

So instead of taking this lying down how about after a momentary whimper, how about some persistence in having these closet totalitarians impeached.


29 posted on 10/22/2007 12:59:04 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: truthluva
Well...actually they can control anything you eat if given the power to do so.

And that is DEFINATELY coming, as soon as the Law-yours get done with the smokers. Trans-fats to be eliminated first, for the children, naturally.

All HAIL THE GOVERNMENT!! (Where is the line for my government cheese?)

30 posted on 10/22/2007 1:02:49 PM PDT by subterfuge (HILLARY IS: She who must not be Dismayed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman

31 posted on 10/22/2007 1:24:47 PM PDT by RightWhale (50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Garbage. There is no explicit Constitutional right of private property.

Quick question. Is the purpose of the Constitution to give us our rights, (Forget about them being framed as inalienable), or does the Constitution serve to place limits upon the government intrustion on our rights?

32 posted on 10/22/2007 2:50:21 PM PDT by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Have you read the US Constitution? We don’t GET rights from the Constitution. Limits of government incursion against private persons is what the US Constitution is all about. And as the Declaration plainly states; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,...

In the original draft it was pursuit of property, because these were/are synonomous to the Founding Fathers.

Here is a transcript for everyone to review:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html


33 posted on 10/22/2007 3:18:50 PM PDT by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamofascists inside and outside our borders, now ACT LIKE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

34 posted on 10/22/2007 3:19:34 PM PDT by RightWhale (50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey

Thanks for the gratuity.


35 posted on 10/22/2007 3:20:38 PM PDT by RightWhale (50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The Constitution enumerates several, but not all, rights and cannot give us rights.

Why then did you expect the Constitution to give you property rights? I'm not following your thinking here.

36 posted on 10/22/2007 3:28:11 PM PDT by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

The state provides the means. The Constitution, which creates the FedGov, could mention the means, such as the Land Office, as it does the Patent and Trademark Office, but the Land Office, also known as the Recorder’s Office, wasn’t invented as a statewide institution at the time and still hasn’t received proper Constitutional mention for making the American Industrial Revolution possible after the XIVth Amend.


37 posted on 10/22/2007 3:34:31 PM PDT by RightWhale (50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: khnyny; calcowgirl; ElkGroveDan; NormsRevenge
"the reductio ad absurdum"

Ooo... ooo...ooo!!! I love that Latin phrase!!!

Kinda reminds me of Illegitimi Non Carborundum... (don't let the bastards grind ya down)

How 'bout... reductio ad absurdum... (illustrating absurdity by being absurd - Rush Limbaugh, 1986)(remember the caller abortions?)

38 posted on 10/22/2007 3:35:37 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Stop the gutless forclosing on righteous Reaganesque conservatives in the GOP!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
****Garbage. There is no explicit Constitutional right of private property. Amend IV and V imply it exists,****

WT heck are you talking about,'Explicit'??? Or only exists at the permission of the Public?

And in case you forgot the purpose of the Constitution was to delineate the limitations on the Federal Government, NOT to explicitly define every right a US Citizen has. The the 9th and 10th Amendments takes care of that.

(And I don't know what the 8th Commandment has to do with US law or citizens rights)

39 posted on 10/22/2007 3:43:01 PM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

It is my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) that our Founding Fathers were more than acquainted with the horrors that a too powerful central government could inflict on the masses.

The Founding Fathers left a Europe that had endured centuries of a feudal/aristocratic system. The majority of people had lived as serfs in servitude to the Noblemen. It was the European version of the Indian caste system. Our Founding Fathers saw the new world as an opportunity to study the Bible, history and philosphy in order “to form a more perfect union” for a better, freer society based on justice and merit, not birth, religious, or political affiliation.

The French writer and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about this new experiment in his book titled “Democracy in America”.

“In Democracy in America, published in 1835, Tocqueville wrote of the New World and its burgeoning democratic order. Observing from the perspective of a detached social scientist, Tocqueville wrote of his travels through America in the early 19th century when the market revolution, Western expansion, and Jacksonian democracy were radically transforming the fabric of American life. He saw democracy as an equation that balanced liberty and equality, concern for the individual as well as the community. A critic of individualism, Tocqueville thought that association, the coming together of people for common purpose, would bind Americans to an idea of nation larger than selfish desires, thus making a civil society which wasn’t exclusively dependent on the state.

Tocqueville’s penetrating analysis sought to understand the peculiar nature of American civic life. In describing America, he agreed with thinkers such as Aristotle, James Harrington and Montesquieu that the balance of property determined the balance of political power, but his conclusions after that differed radically from those of his predecessors. Tocqueville tried to understand why America was so different from Europe in the last throes of aristocracy. America, in contrast to the aristocratic ethic, was a society where money-making was the dominant ethic, where the common man enjoyed a level of dignity which was unprecedented, where commoners never deferred to elites, where hard work and money dominated the minds of all, and where what he described as crass individualism and market capitalism had taken root to an extraordinary degree.”

IMHO, if there are no “private property rights” then the “government” has replaced the powerful elites of centuries past.


40 posted on 10/22/2007 8:51:34 PM PDT by khnyny (Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed. Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Thanks for your thought provoking response. It compelled me to take a look at Webster’s Dictionary.

1. A definition of reasonable (adjective)-”able to reason”.
2. A definition of rational (adjective) -”able to reason”.

So it would appear from this that being reasonable and rational are the same thing.

Now maybe your right if being “able to reason” is a necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT condition to being reasonable. It seems to me that to be reasonable one must not only be able to reason logically, but must be WILLING to do so.

Shysters get what they want by refusing to be rational when it suits them. Rational people CAN interpret Article five so that “private” means “private” and “public use” is not the same as “public purpose”. A judge who is able to reason but has no integrity is going to weasel word a constitutional amendment to mean what he would like it to mean. I think that’s malfeasance “wrongdoing or misconduct, especially by a public official”. Doesn’t this call for impeachment? “To bring a public official before the proper tribunal on a charge of wrongdoing”.

What’s the proper tribunal here? Or do we have the fox guarding the chicken coop?


41 posted on 10/22/2007 11:25:43 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
Can they prevent you from eating - food?

Of course they - the government - can. It is illegal to serve food with trans-fats in New York, for example.

Serious talks about taxation of Ding Dongs to the extent of cigarettes has been going on for a while.

Who would have thought that the Land of the Free would ban the citizens choice to eat what they want.

42 posted on 10/22/2007 11:43:33 PM PDT by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: truthluva
They can control what I eat if they choose to do just that.

How, pray tell, will they accomplish that? Send someone to your house every day at meal times?

43 posted on 10/23/2007 5:41:10 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
the Land Office, also known as the Recorder’s Office, wasn’t invented as a statewide institution at the time

How come I have a friend in Weston, MA whose deed traces back to John Adams before the Revolution?

44 posted on 10/23/2007 5:51:54 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: metesky

By only allowing what they want me to have to be available for consumption.


45 posted on 10/23/2007 6:08:18 AM PDT by truthluva ("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; Albion Wilde; alisasny; ALlRightAllTheTime; AlwaysFree; ...

PING!


46 posted on 10/23/2007 6:18:57 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
There is no explicit Constitutional right of private property.

Key word is explicit. IANAL, but I believe there are many rights that are not explicit in the Constitution....no?

47 posted on 10/23/2007 6:22:22 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: truthluva

The FedGov has made both heroin and weed “unavailable” for consumption for over 70 years, yet I can get either one with a single phone call.


48 posted on 10/23/2007 6:25:29 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: metesky

dude, give it a rest here. You can get stuff like that here because we still live in a free country. Socialism is a whole different animal. All you have to do is pay attention...you will see. Just keep letting the Dems run things. Pretty soon they will run you too.


49 posted on 10/23/2007 6:30:13 AM PDT by truthluva ("Character is doing the right thing even when no one is looking" - JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Why doesnt the govt just grab all the land they need to build the fence?


50 posted on 10/23/2007 6:40:23 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson