Supreme Court abolishes private property

Published on June 23, 2005 By PJ_ In Current Events

Eye-catching title, isn't it? And the sad part is, it's not too far from what happened. I don't like to put political stuff on my blog, but I can't keep my mouth shut about this. Check out the whole story here.

There's a shorter version of the story here that I didn't want to use as the main link, but it still has a quote that I had to include.

"With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies, at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank. "Any time a government official thinks someone else can make better use of your property than you're doing, he can order it condemned and transferred," Pilon said in a statement.

I know the Constitution is deliberately vague on a lot of points. The government is supposed to be able to think of new things and cal them "public use," simply because it would be unreasonable to make them change the constitution every time a new type of public use was thought up (there were no such thing as railroads when the Constitution was first written, for instance). But the Supreme Court exists to make sure the government doesn't overstep its bounds. This is exactly the kind of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to stop them from doing. Now if we want to stop things like this from happening, the only way to do it is to pass laws restricting what kind of public uses are acceptable. And of course governments won't want to do that, because they hardly ever pass laws to restrict their own powers. And even if they did, they would have to make a new law every time a new kind of "public work" was invented that they might need land for. It's a whole big mess for everybody.

Damn it, Supreme Court, why couldn't you just do your job?

Comments (Page 1)

stutefish

on Jun 23, 2005

Actually, all SCOTUS said is that the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit local governments from applying Eminent Domain in this way. If local citizens have a problem with such applicaitions, or if they wish to impose controls on how their local government makes the decision to apply Eminent Domain, SCOTUS won't stop them, and neither will the Federal Constitution.

In other words, this may be a problem, but according to SCOTUS, it's a problem that local communities will each have to solve for themselves. The federal government is staying out of it.

Ionolast

on Jun 23, 2005

Beat you to it. Link

Dr Guy

on Jun 23, 2005

The problem is, this majority thinks it is doing its job. Legislating from the bench.

PJ_

on Jun 23, 2005

I wouldn't call this legislating from the bench. The fifth amendment says, in part, that people can't "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 the question is, does giving land to private corporations for them to develop count as "public use?" There's the argument that it creates jobs and suchlike, and therefore benefits the public as a whole. But you've got to balance that against people having their homes and businesses taken away. And that has a lot of weight, as far as i'm concerned. When the government takes property from some private individuals and gives it to other private individuals that's called redistribution of wealth. That's a communist thing. I guess it's reasonable to try it if it ever becomes clear that our capitalist economy is failing, but it seems to be doing relatively well to me. Don't mess with it.

Dr Guy

on Jun 23, 2005

Well, they just created a new law. What would you call creating a new law? I call it legislating from the Bench.

Sure you can argue it is for the public good. Isn't that what Stalin said in the old USSR?

stutefish

on Jun 23, 2005

What new law did they create?

And did the local government seize the private property without giving compensation?

And anyway, why shouldn't this issue be dealt with by local communities in the first place, rather than making a federal case out of it? The Supreme Court seems to have the same question (and as far as I can tell, their answer is "no reason").

drmiler

on Jun 23, 2005

And did the local government seize the private property without giving compensation?

And anyway, why shouldn't this issue be dealt with by local communities in the first place, rather than making a federal case out of it? The Supreme Court seems to have the same question (and as far as I can tell, their answer is "no reason").

Whether or not they offered compensation is immaterial. Is the US governments name on the deed? Don't think so. What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Does this not infringe on that? Who gives a damn if it creates jobs. They are depriving people or their rightful property! You do not get a choice. If you don't take what "they" offer as compensation, tough boogers! They'll just take it anyway and claim "emminent domain".

PJ_

on Jun 23, 2005

Some people might argue that there's no such thing as "just" compensation for forcing a family to move against their will. And is it really in the public interest to forcibly shut down family busniesses to make room for nation-wide businesses to expand?

The US Constitution is supposed to protect against the wrongful seizure of property. The property owners asked the Supreme Court to step in to stop their property from being seized and given to other private businesses. The Supreme Court chose not to. No new law, just a dereliction of duty.

stutefish

on Jun 23, 2005

drmiler,

First of all, the 5th Amendment says that private property may be taken if compensation is given. Since it's totally constitutional to take private property in exchange for compensation, that would make the compensation issue pretty frickin' material, don't you think?

Second, the U.S. government isn't even involved in this particular case. In fact, that's the whole point of the Supreme Court's ruling: The Federal Constitution allows it, therefore the Federal Government has no authority to--or interest in--stopping it. And the U.S. Government's name is never going to be on the deed, since the issue is actually between a local government and its citizens. This right here would be the "immaterial" bit of the argument that you're looking for.

Third, while our system recognizes the priority of private propery rights in general, it also recognizes that there are some circumstances where the good of the community is best served by government administration of the property. "Eminent Domain" is a time-honored concept that is reasonably applied on a regular basis.

Finally, what the Supreme Court has said is that if local governments want to apply Eminent Domain in this way, the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit such an application. In other words, it is up to the local community to devise and apply stricter controls on Eminent Domain if they want to.

Sure, it might be nice if the Constitution and the Supreme Court actually granted the Federal Government the authority to swoop into any local community, override the local government, and apply some stricter standard of Eminent Domain. But then again, it might not be. Surely you're not clamoring for the Feds to interfere more in local politics, are you?

stutefish

on Jun 23, 2005

PJ_,

As you say, the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect against the wrongful seizure of property. In this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that the seizure of property was not wrongful. If you're saying that the Supreme Court made a mistake, I'd expect to see extensive quoting of the Supreme Court's decision, along with a thoughtful legal analysis that clearly rebuts their argument.

And I'm not trying to say that the local government did a good thing. It sounds like they screwed the pooch, really. But that doesn't mean that the Feds should step in. And it looks like the Supreme Court feels the same way I do.

The problem with Mom & Pop businesses is that the population keeps growing. And the more the population grows, the more efficient you have to be, to keep everybody fed, clothed, and sheltered. Mom & Pop businesses don't leverage economies of scale, and end up becoming more and more resource-intensive the larger your population becomes.

The big national chains solve this problem by being big national chains. They have built large and efficient nationwide infrastructures for shipping, warehousing, and customer transactions. They have figured out how to keep pace with a growing population that has a growing demand for necessities and luxuries.

If Mom & Pop businesses were going to survive the inevitable changes of a prosperous economy, they needed to form nationwide shipping and warehousing co-ops back in the Seventies (if not earlier). And even then, they'd have to eat additional distribution costs at the local level. It's a lot cheaper for Joe Trucking Company to deliver two tons of goods to the Wal-Mart on the edge of town, than it is for him to deliver two cases of goods to each Mom & Pop on Main Street (and that is one of the real reasons why Wal-Mart is so cheap and invincible--because it can leverage economies of scale and pass that savings on to its consumers).

Dr Guy

on Jun 23, 2005

What new law did they create?

The ability for government to sieze land for private use. Show me where that is in the constitution.

Dr Guy

on Jun 23, 2005

The property owners asked the Supreme Court to step in to stop their property from being seized and given to other private businesses. The Supreme Court chose not to. No new law, just a dereliction of duty.

Hence they created a law where none existed before. The ability of government to seize property for other private citizens.

Dr Guy

on Jun 23, 2005

First of all, the 5th Amendment says that private property may be taken if compensation is given.

Since you are going to quote it, quote the whole thing.

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.

Note the bold part. it does not say "Public or Private". It says "Public". Period.

stutefish

on Jun 23, 2005

And the Supreme Court says that giving public land over to a private corporation to develop is not a violation of the Constitution. Disputing their decision involves more than just saying they're wrong, Dr. Guy.

PJ_

on Jun 23, 2005

Technically, it was the local government that created the law that took away the private property. The Supreme Court could have struck the law down, but instead it let the local government's decision stand.

stutefish, you're right that I probably should have read the court's decision in full before shooting my mouth off. Here's a link for anyone else who's interested. And as for a "thoughtful legal analysis that clearly rebuts their argument," that would be extreemly difficult for anyone other than a trained lawyer to provide, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. I don't think a person's opinion should be discounted because they don't have an advanced degree to back it up.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!