Ownership Society Includes Property Confiscation?

The CATO INSTITUTE ^ | 1-12-02 | cato

[AdamSelene235]

"On the campaign trail last year, President Bush said a priority of his second term would be to 'build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence.' Sounds good to us," reads a Wall Street Journal editorialtoday. "But the rhetoric doesn't square with news that the administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain."

The Cato Institute also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case Kelo v. City of New London, except Cato's brief is on behalf of the property owners. It argues that the city has violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. That provision permits government to take private property only for "public" use -- such as roads or hospitals -- after paying just compensation. But in this case, the city wants to seize property for the benefit of private developers -- simply because government accountants believe the new owner's proposed hotel and office buildings will generate more revenue for the city.

The University of Chicago's Richard A. Epstein, author of Cato's brief, carefully dissects the city's argument, showing it to be without constitutional merit. This case, he adds, puts the spotlight on the "financial ruin" and "psychological devastation" that follow from the confiscation of private homes.

[AdamSelene235]

Somehow I'm not excited about Bush's future SCOTUS appointments.

Free pills for granny.

Free drugs for Africa.

Massive expansion of social programs.

And now we he's siding with Communist style land seizures.

Sickening.

[FreeKeys]

"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." -- John Adams
"Private property is the most important guarantee of freedom." -- F.A. Hayek
"No freedom is secure if your property rights are not secure." -- Neal Boortz

[satchmodog9]

Is this ownership society the reason Jeb Bush is letting the feds and the state of Florida condemn a mans property so they can expand a water project. We have no property rights in this country. If you think we do you are a fool. Try not paying your taxes or building something without a permit. Try putting a pier on your river lot. Free my ass.

[dirtboy]

"But the rhetoric doesn't square with news that the administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain."

If true, that's a definite minus against the Bush Admin. This is one of the most important SCOTUS cases in years, IMO.

[Phantom Lord]

Is this ownership society the reason Jeb Bush is letting the feds and the state of Florida condemn a mans property so they can expand a water project.

Depending on the type of "water project" it is likely that such a move is well within eminent domains proper use.

[Ruth A.]

the administration may file an amicus brief

People said the administration might have reinstituted the draft and myriad other possibilities.

[Kevin OMalley]

ownership society read later ping

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Could be worse. He could be planning to drop 150 million illiterate third worlders on our heads over the next five to ten years.

[satchmodog9]

The report I saw on the idiot box was not specific on the nature of the project. My first thought was this was a Florida wetland(swamp) project. If this is the case then the state should lease the land from the man and let him live there and retain all of his normal property rights. In Illinois, the town of Bensonville will lose a large portion of its border to O'Hare expansion if Daley gets his way. Is it right for a town to go away for an airport expansion. I can see your point about being for the public good, but that becomes governments excuse every time.

[MamaTexan]

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.
That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations:
First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit;
second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use;
and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

[Phantom Lord]

When I hear "water project" I think of town water systems and related infastructure. Clearly, the use of eminent domain for the expansion of such things is proper.

But the use of ED had gone so far beyond its proper and constitutional function that hope of turning back the tide on the matter is going to be extremely difficult.

[mysterio]

No one owns land but the government. Try not sending them their rent check this year if you don't believe me. If you live in NYC or California, try telling your friends they can light a smoke in your resteraunt or bar. The government is our landlord, and a lousy one at that.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Ownership Society is a good and pragmatic political vehicle to sway support for needed reforms. Otherwise, the dug-in obstruction by reactionary liberals could be quite effective. We have to be smart to forestall socialism.

The Administration is on the wrong side of a lot of things like Property Rights and Cato is a good group to call them on it.

But I don't see a substantial connection between Ownership Society and Property Rights - I see it as a rhetorical hook being employed in this piece.

[satchmodog9]

Agreed, the great steamroller of government keeps rolling along.

[Redbob]

Well, he's only promoting ownership.

Not "keepership."

[AdamSelene235]

But I don't see a substantial connection between Ownership Society and Property Rights

If Ownership does not entail property rights, then its not Ownership, its doublespeak.

[calex59]

Depending on the type of "water project" it is likely that such a move is well within eminent domains proper use.

Eminent domain has no proper use. It is illegal under the original constitution and probbly illegal under the one we re using today. The government has no right to size your land for any reason, but they do anyway.

As far as just compensation goes, the gov is the one that determines this. How just do you think it is in that case?

This new propensity of taking private property for private use has been going on since Clinton was in office. It started there actually and can't really be laid at Bush's door. Many people have lost their homes and watched a Wall mart go up in there places during WCs administration. We can only hope that any new supreme court justices will be conservative enought to reverse this trend and stop the assault on private property.