Newspaper logo  
 
 
  The Supreme Court Repeals the Constitution

RESPONSE:

The Supreme Court Repeals the Constitution

by Sheldon Richman

It’s an unfortunate historical fact that the American Framers did not condemn the power of eminent domain. But it is also a fact that they sought to limit it through the public-use and just-compensation provisions in the Bill of Rights.
The political philosopher Murray Rothbard used to say that every principle devised to limit the power of government sooner or later becomes a way to expand it. In the recent Supreme Court decision stretching the power of eminent domain to include redistribution of private property to assist private economic activity, we have another example: the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The clause holds, “[Nor] shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Since, as the Supreme Court wrote in 1926, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect,” we have to read each word closely. In his dissent in the recent case, Kelo v. City of New London , Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does just that. Parsing the clause with great care, he shows there is no reasonable reading but this: if the government wants to take a person’s property, it may do so only for public use (such as a road) and only if the owner is fairly paid. Thus the Takings Clause was intended to be, Thomas writes, “an express limit on the government’s power of eminent domain.”

Before proceeding I must say that eminent domain assaults the individual freedom that Americans will go through the motions of celebrating on July 4. The very term should make us suspicious in that it tells us that government asserts, according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law , “the superior dominion of its sovereignty over all lands within its jurisdiction.” In other words, we live on the land at the pleasure of the sovereign. As a matter of law, this principle is a vestige of absolute monarchy and is contrary to the libertarian spirit of the American founding. As a matter of logic, no “just compensation” is possible in a forced sale of property, because the only just price is the one freely negotiated by seller and buyer. What makes a transaction morally legitimate is not compensation but consent. Eminent-domain cases are distinguished precisely by their lack of seller’s consent.

Some are more secure than others: the homes of low-income people are far more likely to be taken than those of the affluent. The winners are big, well-connected businesses—and revenue-hungry local politicians, such as those in New London, Connecticut.

It’s an unfortunate historical fact that the American Framers did not condemn the power of eminent domain. But it is also a fact that they sought to limit it through the public-use and just-compensation provisions in the Bill of Rights. This is why the Kelo decision is such a blow. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor writes in her dissent, the Court has “effectively [deleted] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

We are all less secure in our homes than we were on June 22. But some are more secure than others: the homes of low-income people are far more likely to be taken than those of the affluent. The winners are big, well-connected businesses — and revenue-hungry local politicians, such as those in New London, Connecticut. They condemned a number of homes and stores in a decent working-class neighborhood to make way for upscale restaurants and other businesses. Several homeowners objected, including an elderly woman who has lived in her home all her life, and they sued all the way to the Supreme Court. The city argued that since the new businesses will produce increased tax revenue and jobs, the takings will benefit the public, even if the city doesn’t directly use the land.

In ruling for the city, the 5-4 majority held that “public use” needn’t mean public use. It may mean any intended public benefit. Quoting a 1984 case, Justice John Paul Stevens declared, the “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public.”

If the Court can liberate itself from any “literal requirement” when reading the Takings Clause, it follows that it can liberate itself from that requirement when reading any other part of the Constitution. But that means we can never know how the Court will claim to understand the Framers’ limits on government power. Which means: there are no limits on government power.

We’ve been in postconstitutional America for some time now. Kelo adds an ominous P.S.: There’s no turning back.


Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine .


Copyright © 2005 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on July 11, 2005.

 
Bookmark and Share
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Local Newsbriefs

Travel
Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Open Letters:

03.05 Open Letter to Congressman Bart Stupak

Health & Environment

Video National Health Care Systems In Other Countries

03.12 Slick Barry and the $100-Billion Medicaid/Medicare Fraud Claim

03.09 Kill Bill: Death to Obamacare!

03.09 Obama’s Rhetoric May Be “Fiery,” But His Health Care Reform Is Still Lukewarm

02.24 Obama’s New Plan

02.21 Time to Pass the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009

Media Watching

03.12 Cud and Complicity: Burying the Alternatives to Empire's Dominion

03.11 NYT and the ACORN Hoax

03.05 Sorry, Rove, Bush Did Lie About Iraq

03.03 It's Snow News

03.03 The Woeful Washington Post

02.28 The NYT Veers Neocon

02.18 US Media Replays Iraq Fiasco on Iran

Ref. : The Daily Howler

Legal Matters

02.26 America's Supremes: Court Over Constitution

US Politics, Policy & Culture

03.11 Power Rangers: Policing the System With the "Fightin' Progressives"

03.09 Thinking About Countings

03.07 Unnatural Acts: Breaking the Fever of Militarism

02.25 Future Shock: A Better World Beyond the Imperium

02.24 The Last Flight of Joe Stack

02.22 Thinking About Sadie

02.18 All Systems Go: No Dysfunction in Profitable Afghan Enterprise

“High Crimes?”

03.13 Palestinian Dispossession in East Jerusalem

03.12 Israeli Settlement Expansions Continue

03.11 Brutalizing Palestinian Children

03.08 The Russell Tribunal on Palestine: Barcelona Session

03.05 Targeting Israeli Apartheid

03.01 America's Permanent War Agenda

02.25 Global Sweatshop Wage Slavery

02.23 Israeli Unaccountability and Denial: Suppressing the Practice of Torture

02.22 American Genocides: is Haiti Next?

02.18 Israeli Abusive Administrative Detentions

02.16 MK-ULTRA: The CIA's Mind Control Program

Economics & Business Non/Mis/Malfeasance

03.14 The Crisis in America's Telecommunications Network

03.09 The Business of Water: Privatizing An Essential Resource

03.05 Is the Recovery Real?

03.04 IMF-Style Austerity Measures come to America: What “Fiscal Responsibility” Means To You

03.04 Barry C. Lynn's "Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and Economics of Destruction"

03.02 Obama's Budget Revealed: Money for Wars and Weapons, While More Americans Face Joblessness and Hunger

03.01 Thinking About Fees

02.22 Campaigning for State-Owned Banks

02.22 Social Security Will Fall To Obama Before The Taliban Do

02.19 Obama’s Stealth Entitlement Commission

02.19 Selling Out America to Wall Street

International

03.15 Peace Process Hypocrisy: Stillborn from Inception

03.03 Muslim Disunity

03.02 Funding Israeli Militarism, Belligerence and Occupation

02.26 Iran Captures a 'Good' Terrorist

02.24 The Dubai Hit

02.22 Holland Has Had Enough: Killing of Innocent Civilians Goes On Apace in Afghanistan

02.19 The Placeman Cometh: New IAEA Chief Stokes Iran War Fever for the Bush-Obama Regime

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.
Google
This site Web

Public Service Ads:
Verifiable Voting in Maryland