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.

[blackeagle]

bump

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...We have to be smart to forestall socialism...


Yeah, smart enough to build a time machine.

[Orange1998]

A municipal utility district is using eminent domain for a portion of my property. They want to lay sewer and water for a new subdivision down the road. I asked them to provide me sewer and water since it going across my property and they told me to get lost.

[JOAT]

Bump

[LibertarianInExile]

Bush files on this side, Rehnquist and O'Connor will back the seizures, we're screwed. Better sell the farm now and put your assets in a form you can carry.

[Centurion2000]

A municipal utility district is using eminent domain for a portion of my property. They want to lay sewer and water for a new subdivision down the road. I asked them to provide me sewer and water since it going across my property and they told me to get lost.

Guess it's time for blasting out those tree stumps on your land .... oops ... one was too close to the pipeline .. what a pity.

[Sonny M]

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.

I don't see how its illegal, though I do agree with your point about just compensation.

Its pretty clear under the 5th amendment, that they can seize private property for public use as long as due process is followed and just compensation is given.

Bare in mind, I strongly disagree with taking private property for public or private use (I feel private property should only be taken as punishment for a serious crimes, or if public use, then something of only the highest and most urgent importance, which is still debatable, but the higher the standard the better i.e. your next door to terrorists, and the government needs to monitor them for intel or something).

Clinton essentially privatized emminant domain (which is why certain large retailers backed him up), though the GOP wasn't exactly not complicit.

You would be amazed, at how many socialists, of the "anti-business" and "anti-corporate" envious slothes, actually support privatizing emminent domain, the reasons alone are chilling.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[jackbob]

I suspect that even the presidents concept regarding "ownership" as it applies to Social Security, is not going to be real ownership. Are they not going to dictate what your SS dollars can and cannot be invested in? Does anyone actually believe that they will let the selected investments fail when natural economic realities lead to such failures? Do we need the government protecting preferred investments?

Ownership must include taking full responsibility for losses. Political reality says that will not be the case. The people will demand bail outs for failures. Government planners will regulate, manipulate markets, and even slow or prevent innovations that would economically hurt the preferred investments.

The whole concept being pushed by the President is a Trojan Horse loaded with the next army for the advancement of socialistic economic planning.

[AdamSelene235]

You have grokked its essence and speak rightly.

[jackbob]

Way back in I the 1980s I helped organize a state wide campaign against a Washington State Legislature endorsed initiative to amend the State Constitution to allow use of the federal "Tax Free Industrial Revenue Bonds." It had almost unanimous republican and democratic party support. We lost.

But everything we predicted as to boondoggle investments, and tax supported bailouts occurred after their use. I see this as more of the same.

[jackbob]

correction to my last reply. Last sentence should read:

I see this as more of the same, on a far more grander enormous scale

[jackbob]

correction to my last reply. Last sentence should read:

I see this as more of the same, on a far more grander enormous scale

[Shermy]

"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."