| Line 70: |
Line 70: |
| | There were many "radicals" in the United States at the time of the American Revolution and afterward who were opponents of private property. Radicals took control of the French Revolution and much private property was seized or destroyed in that nation. A major motivation for writing the U.S. Constitution and establishing a strong but limited national government was to protect private property against radicals, and against tyranny. | | There were many "radicals" in the United States at the time of the American Revolution and afterward who were opponents of private property. Radicals took control of the French Revolution and much private property was seized or destroyed in that nation. A major motivation for writing the U.S. Constitution and establishing a strong but limited national government was to protect private property against radicals, and against tyranny. |
| | | | |
| − | Today, the Fifth Amendment is the primary protection for private property in the U.S. Constitution, and it is a constant source of lawsuits and controversy over how strong that protection really is. The Fifth Amendment protects against the taking of private property by government without "just compensation." What constitutes a "taking" is the source of continuing dispute. | + | Today, the Fifth Amendment is the primary protection for private property in the U.S. Constitution, and it is a constant source of lawsuits and controversy over how strong that protection really is. The "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment protects against the taking of private property by government without "just compensation": |
| | + | {{cquote|nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation}} |
| | + | What constitutes a "taking" and what constitute "public use" remain issues of continuing controversy. |
| | + | |
| | + | The power of "eminent domain" has roots in pre-colonial England, dating all the way back to the Magna Carta in England in 1215.<ref>http://www.history.com/topics/magna-carta</ref> Eminent domain allows government to take someone's land for a public purpose, such as building a road or City Hall. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ensures that the property owner receives compensation from the government for the value of his taken land. But in practice the owner of the land is often unhappy about the taking, because he only receives what the government (or a court) thinks the property is worth, not a higher number that the owner thinks the land was worth. And if the property owner had a business on the land, then he is not going to full cost of moving the business somewhere else. |
| | + | |
| | + | There is also sentimental value to homes and lands, and some people (particularly older folks) do not want to give up the home that they raised their family in. In the case of''Kelo v. City of New London'' (2005), the town had took Susette Kelo's home in order to provide it to a large corporation that wanted build a massive corporate complex. The town did this because it hoped to receive higher taxes from the corporate complex. But Mrs. Kelo did not want to lose her home in this manner. The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, held against Mrs. Kelo and in favor of the town's taking her home away from her (while paying her "just compensation"). |
| | + | |
| | + | The U.S. Supreme Court held that it was a "public use" for the City of New London to attempt to increase its tax revenues by converting a residential neighborhood into a corporate complex. That broad view of what would quality as a "public use" opened the door to other corporations causing towns to take people's homes for the use of the companies. Accordingly, "public use" is no longer limited to building a road or a City Hall. Almost any use can quality for eminent domain by government today. |
| | + | |
| | + | But illustrating the folly of many of these "takings" by government, the corporation (Pfizer) never build its corporate complex despite winning the case. It spent nearly $80 million in taxpayer money but ultimately abandoned the neighborhood and left the property vacant. (The small pink house of Mrs. Kelo was saved by private supporters and moved, for historical purposes, to a different location in downtown New London, Connecticut.) |
| | + | |
| | + | Public outrage against the Supreme Court decision in ''Kelo v. City of New London'' led to 43 state legislatures and 8 state supreme courts increasing the protections for private property rights in their states. In addition, supporters of private property have defeated 44 new development projects that attempted to use eminent domain to take land and homes away from property owners. |
| | + | |
| | + | Like many other rights, private property rights are determined and protected mostly at the state and local level. The Supreme Court rarely decides a "Takings Clause" issue, and has not rendered a major decision on this topic since ''Kelo v. City of New London'' in 2005. |
| | | | |
| | ===Immigration=== | | ===Immigration=== |
| Line 76: |
Line 90: |
| | Perhaps the biggest issue today is immigration, and whether any rights should be given to people who have entered our nation unlawfully. Article I of the Constitution grants to Congress the authority over "naturalization", but President Obama has been asserting authority under the executive branch to grant "amnesty" to illegal aliens in the United States. | | Perhaps the biggest issue today is immigration, and whether any rights should be given to people who have entered our nation unlawfully. Article I of the Constitution grants to Congress the authority over "naturalization", but President Obama has been asserting authority under the executive branch to grant "amnesty" to illegal aliens in the United States. |
| | | | |
| − | The power of "eminent domain" has roots in pre-colonial England, and it allows government to take someone's land for a public purpose, such as building a road or City Hall. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ensures that the property owner receives compensation from the government for the value of his taken land. But in practice the owner of the land is often unhappy about the taking, because he only receives what the government (or a court) thinks the property is worth, not a higher number that the owner thinks the land was worth. And if the property owner had a business on the land, then he is not going to full cost of moving the business somewhere else.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There is also sentimental value to homes and lands, and some people (particularly older folks) do not want to give up the home that they raised their family in. In the case of''Kelo v. City of New London'' (2005), the town had took Susette Kelo's home in order to provide it to a large corporation that wanted build a massive corporate complex. The town did this because it hoped to receive higher taxes from the corporate complex. But Mrs. Kelo did not want to lose her home in this manner. The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, held against Mrs. Kelo and in favor of the town's taking her home away from her (while paying her "just compensation").
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Then, illustrating the folly of many of these "takings" by government, the corporation (Pfizer) spent nearly $80 million in taxpayer money but never built the planned corporate complex, and ultimately abandoned the neighborhood. (But the small pink house of Mrs. Kelo was saved by private supporters and moved to different location in downtown New London, Connecticut.)
| |
| | | | |
| − | Public outrage against the Supreme Court decision in ''Kelo v. City of New London'' led to 43 state legislatures and 8 state supreme courts increasing the protections for private property rights in their states. In addition, supporters of private property have defeated 44 new development projects that attempted to use eminent domain to take land and homes away from property owners.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Free speech and campaign finance=== | | ===Free speech and campaign finance=== |