Private Property @ MindSay

By Congressman Ron Paul

The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to be secure against all unreasonable seizures.  My home state of Texas is unfortunately planning on some very unreasonable seizures of land with the monstrous Trans Texas Corridor highway project.  The TTC plans call for a highway to cut through about 4,000 Texas miles, and with separate rail lines for passenger and freight, a multi-lane highway with separate truck lanes, utility and cable easements, this highway could be as wide as 1200 feet across.  In the end this project would consume something like half a million acres of land in Texas .  However, since the exact path of the road has not been determined, it is putting much more acreage in jeopardy, and in limbo.

Taking land is destructive enough.  But the perpetual threat of taking an undetermined amount of land is hanging over the heads of millions of Texans and putting their lives at a standstill.  Land is a store of wealth and a source of stability.  This highway project is tragically threatening that for so many Texans.

The principle of private property is the cornerstone to a free and prosperous society.  In situations where a colossal government land grab is a distinct possibility, investment or improvement becomes more risky with an uncertain future and tends not to happen.  How do you sell land that may or may not be taken by the government at some point in the not too distant future?  Who would buy it?  How do you cultivate or build on, or even near, land that may or may not be paved over and turned into a massive, noisy thoroughfare in a few years?

Even more insulting is the distinct possibility that, while the road will collect tolls and fees, making a private foreign firm billions of dollars in revenue, the costs of building it could be heavily borne by taxpayers.  So the costs will be socialized and the profits privatized.  Public-private partnership indeed!

From Washington I have voiced my staunch disapproval of taking these hard-working taxpayers’ land for a private toll road, by introducing legislation (HR 5191) that simply states, “No Federal funds appropriated or made available before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act may be used by a unit of Federal, State, or local government to carry out the highway project known as the 'Trans-Texas Corridor'.”  I am working hard in Congress to make sure that no Federal funding is used to undermine property rights in this way.

We should be focusing on guarding and securing our borders for the protection of the American people. 

Instead we are paving the way for more and more people to cross the border as comfortably as possible.  And taking the family farm to do it.  It is an absolute outrage.

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I were out buying dinner.  We got in line right behind an older Chinese man, Mr. Wang, to get some steamed dumplings.  A conversation ensued.  I asked what he felt the biggest change in the last 20 years was.  He said privatized home ownership.  I would have thought he'd mention the new technologies, the sudden presence of traffic jams, or something of the sort.  But his response was the ability to own his own home.

The successor to “the most important change in twenty years” is facing difficulties, though.  A new bill meant to further encourage and protect private property rights has been delayed because some feel that China's rampant capitalism, is, well, rampant.  China, for those that have forgotten, is in theory a socialist state.  I'm no political scientist, but I understand that means that a lot of things are under the governance of the state.  But for the last decade or so, things in China have chugged away from the socialism towards capitalism at a steady pace.  Though China has ridden on the back of capitalism to miraculous economic progress, problems have arisen.  For example, people are taking advantage of government contacts to get rights to state land and make massive profits in developing the land—land that was once “the people's” is being used by profiteers for purely personal profit.

So much for socialism in practice, right?  But many are calling the holdup on the new private property bill a shake-up for Capitalism.  This because leftist thinkers have taken up the private property issue as a flagship in their fight against what they feel is a reckless acceptance of capitalism in China.  Said socialists are saying that capitalism has led to corruption and an unacceptable income gap between the urban and the rural.

Now, it's my impression that corruption existed before capitalism and it is my personal opinion that a free press would be the best way to combat corruption.  But it's the easy thing to do when you are a socialist: blame your countries' woes on capitalism.  But I'm not socialist.  Still, I do think that China should step back and take a look at things.  Is China really socialist anymore?  Should they hold on to socialist ideals?  If so, a socialist ideology and a capitalist reality really is a conundrum for China—and it has been since reforms began 25 years ago. I personally think that unless the government holds onto some control, China will fall apart at the seams.  The growing income gap between the rich and poor is real and the unrest in the countryside is real.  Something needs to be done.  Whether or not is accepting or rejecting private property laws is not my area of expertise.  China has a socialist heart and a capitalist mind—how and if the two systems will finally find equilibrium in China is anyone's guess.

Edit: The revision of the property laws has been set aside for the year.  It will be reviewed again next year.  I think it can be assumed that revisions will be made to it.  But it is assumed that the revised edition will pass next year.

I spent the day telling people about yesterdays Supreme Court ruling.  Everyone could not believe what the decision was and were extremely appalled.  Everyone exibited the same response as I did when I heard about it.  Problem is, though, none of them wanted to do anything about it.  I just don't understand that.  If every one would just take time out to make a phone call, it would matter.  We as Americans need to make a lot of noise about this.  The Supreme Court has changed the meaning of using eminent domain for public use as written by the Constitution and it is not good for the country. 

As written, the Fifth Amendment is:

Article [V.]

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.

What is at issue hear is the definition of "Public Use" which as defined by LawEncyclopedia.com is:

public use

n. the only purpose for which private property can be taken (condemned) by the government under its power of eminent domain. Public use includes: schools, streets, highways, hospitals, government buildings, parks, water reservoirs, flood control, slum clearance and redevelopment, public housing, public theaters and stadiums, safety facilities, harbors, bridges, railroads, airports, terminals, prisons, jails, public utilities, canals, and numerous other purposes designated as beneficial to the public.

I see no where in the legal definition of public use the words "tax revenue" being written.  The Supreme Court see's things differently.  The majority feel that, as written by Justice Stevens,

No. 04.108

and concluded in the decision,

As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Courts authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City.s proposed condemnations are for a public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is affirmed.

What this means is that the Supreme Court has broadened the definition of "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  The Supreme Court has ruled that increased tax revenues are part of the definition of "public use".  They decided for the good of the city.  The common good.   Read the enitre decision for yourself as it is available online.  We as citizens can now lose everything we have worked for just to have it  be taken away from us and we cannot do anything about it unless we take action to protect our rights.  It our right as Americans is to own a piece of dirt we call ours.  Our homes.  Our families.  Out lives.  Our heritage.  Our future.  It can now all be taken away from us.  You.  Me.  Your grandfather.  Your Aunt.  Your cousin.  Someone you know.   As far as I can see, that is an opening to socialism.  Plain and simple.  It is un-American and is wrong.  I could spend so much more time about this issue that we now face.  Other areas include "Blighted areas".  "Just compensation".  "Impeachment of the majority Justices".  But all of these I will address at another time.  If my entry bores you, then get interested.  It is about all Americans and our rights as citizens.

I have made mention of who I have emailed in a previous entry.  I will gather the names and addresses of my States Representatives and will be emailing and sending letters to them  I will not sit still about this.  Please take action.  Do the same. You count.  We all count. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________