Skip to comments.
Ownership Society Includes Property Confiscation?
The CATO INSTITUTE ^
| 1-12-02
| cato
Posted on 01/12/2005 12:17:47 PM PST by 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.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: cato; eminentdomain; fifthamendment; govwatch; ownershipsociety; propertyrights; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
To: 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.
2
posted on
01/12/2005 12:21:02 PM PST
by
AdamSelene235
(Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
To: AdamSelene235
"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
3
posted on
01/12/2005 12:21:16 PM PST
by
FreeKeys
(More quotes at http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm)
To: AdamSelene235
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.
4
posted on
01/12/2005 12:22:13 PM PST
by
satchmodog9
(Murder and weather are our only news)
To: AdamSelene235
"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.
5
posted on
01/12/2005 12:26:37 PM PST
by
dirtboy
(To make a pearl, you must first irritate an oyster)
To: 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. Depending on the type of "water project" it is likely that such a move is well within eminent domains proper use.
6
posted on
01/12/2005 12:27:12 PM PST
by
Phantom Lord
(Advantages are taken, not handed out)
To: farmfriend
To: AdamSelene235
the administration may file an amicus brief People said the administration might have reinstituted the draft and myriad other possibilities.
8
posted on
01/12/2005 12:34:48 PM PST
by
Ruth A.
To: AdamSelene235
ownership society read later ping
9
posted on
01/12/2005 12:35:40 PM PST
by
Kevin OMalley
(No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
To: AdamSelene235
Could be worse. He could be planning to drop 150 million illiterate third worlders on our heads over the next five to ten years.
To: Phantom Lord
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.
11
posted on
01/12/2005 12:40:08 PM PST
by
satchmodog9
(Murder and weather are our only news)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: AdamSelene235
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)
13
posted on
01/12/2005 12:42:21 PM PST
by
MamaTexan
(I am not a 'legal entity')
To: satchmodog9
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.
14
posted on
01/12/2005 12:44:26 PM PST
by
Phantom Lord
(Advantages are taken, not handed out)
To: AdamSelene235
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.
15
posted on
01/12/2005 12:46:55 PM PST
by
mysterio
To: AdamSelene235
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.
To: Phantom Lord
Agreed, the great steamroller of government keeps rolling along.
17
posted on
01/12/2005 12:48:42 PM PST
by
satchmodog9
(Murder and weather are our only news)
To: AdamSelene235
Well, he's only promoting ownership.
Not "keepership."
18
posted on
01/12/2005 12:49:11 PM PST
by
Redbob
To: NutCrackerBoy
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.
19
posted on
01/12/2005 12:54:19 PM PST
by
AdamSelene235
(Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
To: Phantom Lord
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.
20
posted on
01/12/2005 12:57:58 PM PST
by
calex59
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson