Trash The Fifth Amendment

One of my first inklings of a story to come was this story on ABC News. In a nutshell:

The issue revolves around whether a government is serving a public purpose when it uses its power of eminent domain to take land. The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. The New London case is not about the amount of compensation being offered, but whether the government can take the property at all.

Specifically, the 5th Amendment states:

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 [emphasis added].

Now the Supreme Court has ruled that local and state governments may take any property whatsoever if by so doing and by compensating the owners "appropriately" a greater good can be gained for the community. In essense, if your property is on a corner say and you pay $2000.00 per year in total property taxes and a developer wants to put a Mall on that corner it can. The city will make a judgement "Hmmmm, $2000.00 in taxes from Mr. Jones or $98,000.00 a year in property and sales taxes from Harvey's Mall. Easy choice, all in favor say Aye." Now, let's say that Mr. Jones is lower middle class, retired, lived in his home with his wife for the last 45 years and they have always struggled to pay their fair share of taxes. Does that matter? Nope Mr. Jones is outaluck.

Now, to me, and to any right thinking individual that ought to be just plain wrong. If you need the property for a school, a treatment plant, a city hospital, whatever. Fine! Take it. But to turn it over to another private entity just because they want it and can't buy it on their own?

I'm sure that there are plenty of folk that are essentially statists that will agree with this, but they are flat out wrong. The right should be against this because the meaning of property rights must be an individual right or it has no meaning. I'm not talking about the right of corporations or citys or other organizations, public or private, to own property. I'm talking about Joe Homeowner. The left should be against this because the wealthy homeowner won't be affected, the city/state gets plenty of tax money from them as it is and they are generally pretty powerful. Ahh, but the lower and middle class that own's their own home? Those who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and lived the American Dream? They are the ones that will be hurt the most.

And the damnable thing is that they will be hurt most by the one governmental organization that ought to be looking out for their best interests.

There are currently 6 Supreme Court Justices and 1 Chief Justice. Each one, regardless of party or political persuasion that voted for this travesty should be ashamed of themselves.

More at bRight and Early and well stated too!

Update: Michele Malkin has a veritable link fest on this topic.

Update II: Donald Luskin, a far better economist than Paul Krugman has a good posting

Posted by GM Roper at June 23, 2005 08:38 PM | TrackBack