Skip to comments.The Decline and Fall of the Right to Property: Government as Universal Landlord (Gov't Power Grab)
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."
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." The object or purpose of governmental action should be the various kinds of "redistribution" that characterize the "regulatory welfare state." 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." 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." 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." "It is now widely accepted," this prognosticator concludes, "that property is not a limit to legitimate governmental action, but a primary subject of it." At the time, these views seemed wildly inflated--mere wishful thinking on the part of an intellectual searching for "a new conceptual framework." 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 ...
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.
Civil Rights trump individual rights, undermining freedom.
Those who invoke Civil Rights are evil.
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.
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.
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.
There is no property ownership in America.
There’s no explicit Constitutional right to food. Is it your opinion that the federal government has the right to regulate your intake?
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.
Food and Drug Administration.
They can control what I eat if they choose to do just that.
Who is authorizing this?
Can they prevent you from eating - food?
[Can they prevent you from eating - food?]
Can they mandate what is and is not defined as food?
As the country moves closer and closer to communism, private property fades away. The process is gradual, so few people notice.
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
[Which did position you mean to take.]
You could market your nuts and bolts as a dietary supplement.
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’.
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.
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...
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 isnt 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.
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?)
Speaking of meanings of words, rational does not equal reasonable. In fact the Constitution Rev. 2.0 was written by reasonable people and rational people don't have a prayer of interpreting it--lawyers are required.
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?
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:
Not in general. The state protects rights. The Constitution enumerates several, but not all, rights and cannot give us rights.
Thanks for the gratuity.
Why then did you expect the Constitution to give you property rights? I'm not following your thinking 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.
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?)
WT heck are you talking about,'Explicit'??? Or only exists at the permission of the Public?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Section. 1. All persons .... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
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)
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.
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?
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.
How, pray tell, will they accomplish that? Send someone to your house every day at meal times?
How come I have a friend in Weston, MA whose deed traces back to John Adams before the Revolution?
By only allowing what they want me to have to be available for consumption.
Key word is explicit. IANAL, but I believe there are many rights that are not explicit in the Constitution....no?
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.
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.
Why doesnt the govt just grab all the land they need to build the fence?
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.