Ron Paul: Lessons from the Kelo Decision

Lessons from the Kelo Decision

July 4,  2005  

One week after the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation’s highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer.  Even as we celebrate our independence from England this July 4^th, we find ourselves increasingly enslaved by petty bureaucrats at every level of government.  The anger engendered by the Kelo case certainly resonates on this holiday based on rebellion against government.

The City of New London, Connecticut essentially acted as a strongman by seizing private property from one group of people for the benefit of a more powerful private interest.  For its services, the city will be paid a tribute in the form of greater taxes from the new development.  In any other context, what’s happening in Connecticut properly would be described as criminal.  However, the individuals losing their homes understand that stealing is stealing, even if the people responsible are government officials.  The silver lining in the Kelo case may be that the veneer of government benevolence is being challenged.

Kelo has several important lessons for all of us.  We are witnessing the destruction of any last remnants of the separation of powers doctrine, a doctrine our founders considered critical to freedom.  The notion that the judicial branch of government serves as a watchdog to curb legislative and executive abuses has been entirely exposed as an illusion.  Judges not only fail to defend our freedoms, they actively infringe upon them by acting as de facto legislators.  Thus Kelo serves as a stark reminder that we cannot rely on judges to protect our freedoms.

It is folly to believe we will regain lost freedoms if only the right individuals are appointed to the Supreme Court.  Republican presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, have appointed some of our very worst Supreme Court Justices.  In today’s political context, it frankly matters very little whom President Bush appoints to replace Justice O’Connor.  Even the most promising jurist can change radically over the course of a lifetime appointment.  We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and the fixation on individuals as saviors of our freedoms is misplaced.  America will regain lost freedoms only when her citizens wake up and reclaim a national sense of self-reliance, individualism, and limited government.  A handful of judges cannot save a nation from itself. 

The Kelo case also demonstrates that local government can be as tyrannical as centralized government.  Decentralized power is always preferable, of course, since it’s easier to fight city hall than Congress.  But government power is ever and always dangerous, and must be zealously guarded against.  Most people in New London, Connecticut, like most people in America, would rather not involve themselves in politics.  The reality is that politics involves itself with us whether we like it or not.  We can bury our heads in the sand and hope that things don’t get too bad, or we can fight back when government treats us as its servant rather than its master.

If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5^th amendment does not apply to states.  If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases– not only when it serves our interests.  The issue in the Kelo case is the legality of the eminent domain action under Connecticut law, not federal law.  Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property, but the fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level.  The people of New London, Connecticut could start by removing from office the local officials who created the problem in the first place.

Ron Paul: Elected Officials Threatening Property Rights

Elected Officials Threatening Property Rights

September 4,  2006    

In recent weeks I’ve written about the threat of rising property taxes posed by state and local governments hungry for more and more of your money; and the threat of widespread eminent domain actions posed by a planned North American superhighway running straight through Texas.  It’s clear that many political and business interests are only too willing to drive people literally out of their homes to make way for the grand schemes of those in power.

 

This is why every American needs to understand that property rights are the foundation of a free society.  Without property rights, all citizens live subject to the whims of government officials.  When government can seize your property without your consent, all of your other rights are negated.  Our founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was being used to justify unholy alliances between private developers and tax-hungry local governments.

 

 Now one year removed from the notorious Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation’s highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer.  The silver lining, however, is that many Americans have been stirred to action and are demanding new state laws to prohibit the Kelo scenario from repeating itself in their cities.

The Kelo case demonstrates that local government can be as tyrannical as centralized government.  Decentralized power is always preferable, of course, since it’s easier to fight city hall than Congress.  But government power is ever and always dangerous, and must be zealously guarded against.  Most people in New London, Connecticut, like most people in America, would rather not involve themselves in politics.  The reality is that politics involves itself with us whether we like it or not.  We can bury our heads in the sand and hope things don’t get too bad, or we can fight back when government treats us as its servant rather than its master.

Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property.  I’ve introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation.  But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level.  The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas, could start by removing from office local officials who have so little respect for property rights.

 

Ron Paul on Property Rights

Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
Often Congress’ laws are not about environment, but power and control
It is the most basic of all our rights. In a society which has the proper focus, many of the problems we face today become non-issues. Over the last half-century, there has been a declared war on these most fundamental of rights: property rights. – July 6, 1998

Some try to make this an issue of simply pro-property rights versus pro-environmentalism. In reality, the issue is much, much deeper. In fact, how we look at property rights is a most basic foundation of our liberty.

When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it. With a proper respect for private property, people can and should be allowed to do whatever they would like with their land – barring any restrictions they agreed to when they purchased the land – up until the point that their actions physically affect their neighbors.

So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse.

But the issue is so much more broad than simply concerns over the protection of the environment. Much has been done in the name of “environmentalism” which in reality has little to do with clean air and water, and everything to do with power and control.

For the degree of freedom we enjoy on our own property – whether it is a thousand-acre farm or a single-family dwelling lot in a town or city – is a strong measure of the liberty in a society.

Our respect for private property goes to the root of our other freedoms: freedom of speech, of religion, to own weapons, to gather peaceably, and on. Much is made that one should not “yell fire in a crowded theater.” And while that is true in a moral sense, it is equally true that the property owner should have the right to disallow people from saying or doing anything in their theater, or even being there in the first place. But today the government dictates not only how we can use the land, but in many cases forces us to allow others to use our property in ways to which we object.

Freedom only exists where there is complete respect for rights of property ownership. When we go to another person’s land, or home, or business, we should expect to be bound by their rules of conduct. And they should be free to protect their property and family as they see fit.

Increasingly, though, the government is usurping our property rights, in one fashion or another. It is fair to say that we are in a sense losing true property ownership. In many cases, the government prevents us from doing with our property what we would like, essentially making the land worthless. Yet government still manages to tax us at rates which rival rent for the pleasure of being forbidden from using the land. Some of the laws are ostensibly “environmental” in nature, others reflect a desire for “fairness,” while still others make claims of simply being “good for everyone.” While these laws may be good for the big-government bureaucrats, they are bad for almost everyone else. In fact, these laws amount to regulatory takings, which are prohibited by our Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

Perhaps the most egregious assault occurs, though, at the death of a property owner. Instead of being able to leave the family estate to his heirs, the owner’s survivors must instead sit down with the government and negotiate how to divide up the property. The family farm is an endangered species, not for a lack of profitability or interest, but because the taxes assessed by government at our death forces the family to sell off land just to pay the levy.

Our freedoms and liberties are only as secure as our property rights. This was the underlying assumption of our Founding Fathers, and a foundation we are in danger of cracking. Without a firm respect for property ownership, all our other rights are only so much talk.