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.

[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--

[khnyny]

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.

[untenured]

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.

[Mark was here]

Civil Rights trump individual rights, undermining freedom.

Those who invoke Civil Rights are evil.

[khnyny]

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.

[RightWhale]

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.

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

Kelo ping

[lone star annie]

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.

[mysterio]

There is no property ownership in America.

[Sgt_Schultze]

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

[3catsanadog]

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.

[truthluva]

Food and Drug Administration.

[Sgt_Schultze]

So the FDA can prevent you from eating?

We're screwed.

[truthluva]

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

[freekitty]

Who is authorizing this?

[VxH]

Nothing new.

 

Usus Fructus

[Sgt_Schultze]

Can they prevent you from eating - food?

[VxH]

[Can they prevent you from eating - food?]

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

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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.

[Sgt_Schultze]

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?

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

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