By Marilyn Barnewall
Business Reform Magazine provides real biblical answers for real business issues. To visit us, click here.
June 23, 2005 was a day jurists in black robes legislated from the bench.? They chose to interpret the Fifth Amendment to mean private property is really not private property at all.
These jurists are people whose contact with average Americans ended the day they swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and assumed the title “Justice.”? How ironic!? They swear to uphold the very thing with which they lose contact because of their positions!
Their social and professional contacts begin and end with people who willingly kiss judicial anatomies without even being asked.? These people have not heard an honest opinion from an unbiased source for years!? It is time to look at putting limits put on judicial terms of office.?
What does the Fifth Amendment say?? “…Nor shall?private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”? Really?? Well, that’s what it says… but what is that worth, these days? ??The new interpretation is that “public use” now includes “private use.”
In case you have not figured it out, this is not a good time to be the owner of private property.? Your local government – and federal government – get to decide what will be done with your property.
You are the one who paid for it, you say?? Too bad you thought that mattered.
Basically, the Supreme Court has now gone on record as saying private property rights do not exist.? Not really – unless you are Judge Souter.
In Souter’s case, it is okay for his New Hampshire town to reject an offer from a private developer who wants to buy Souter’s home and turn it into a money-making venture.? This would save taxpayers money because of the increased tax revenues that would be generated.? It would create more revenue for the town, the county, the state, thus making it a “public use” not a “private use” issue.
So, what we really have is a highly selective decision about whose property can be taken away and whose cannot.? If cities think a private developer can build developments that raise revenues, cities may take the property from its legal owner and sell it (often at a profit for the city) to the private developer.? A person with money – like Justice Souter – is obviously not going to lose his property… even though his Supreme Court vote said it was right that the city take his property.
The problem with giving any human entity the right to empower others is that what can empower you can also dis-empower you.
America was founded on the principle that the rights of citizens are handed down by God, not government.? It appears to me to be one of the logical reasons so many efforts are frantically made every day to remove God from the empowerment equation.? If God doesn’t give us our rights, government does.
This is why each of us should take very seriously any threat to tread on anyone’s personal property rights.? Let’s face it.? Everything belongs to someone.? Today, if it does not belong to you or another person, it belongs to government.
When you think about it, what is the basis of freedom?? Isn’t it the understanding between you and me and our government that we own ourselves?? No human being can legally own another.?? We fought a long, ugly war to eliminate slavery in the mid-1860s.
Some people don’t like the concept of self-ownership. To admit ownership of something makes one responsible for it.? If you own a car, you pay to insure it.? A lot of people today do not like responsibility.? People demand the right to behave as they want and deny responsibility for their actions.? What they are demanding is license, not freedom.? They can call it freedom, but it is not.
Whatever you purchase with money you earn belongs to whoever owns you.? In other words, the books in your library were purchased by you and they belong to you.? The question then becomes:? To whom do you belong?
There are numerous examples of how our government abuses the property rights of people.
For example, the Southwestern Illinois Development Authority (SWIDA) has quick take powers and abused them a couple of years ago.? They wanted to take property from one business owner and give it to another business. The Illinois Supreme Court said “no.”? The good news is, people are beginning to win more lawsuits that involve illegal takings of their property.
The Christian Science Monitor reported over 10,000 pieces of property have been seized by cities for private developers. Some are the abuses are:
– In Atlantic City, an entire black middle-class neighborhood was condemned and destroyed to make way for a tunnel to a new casino that was never built.
– Bremerton, Washington removed a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years for the claimed purpose of expanding a sewer plant, but gave her former home to an auto dealership.
– West Palm Beach in Florida condemned a family’s home so that the manager of a planned new golf course could live in it.
Freedom does not exist unless the right to self-ownership is recognized.? When people are denied their rights to own themselves and their possessions, they are denied the most basic of freedoms.
Both the rich and the poor in America have the opportunity to be property owners.? It is singularly the most important thing that has set the United States apart from other nations. A poor person can buy property in the U.S. He can then mortgage that property and use the collateral to start a small business.
If the American dream comes true, the small business will become Microsoft and the owner will be worth billions… a Bill Gates.
The Constitution was specific in stating that condemnation of property should be used sparingly.? Public use was defined as military bases, highways, bridges, prisons, and courts.? When it was necessary to take private property because of public need, owners are to be paid “just compensation.” Because of that, people are willing to make the sacrifices and take the risks necessary to buy, hold and improve property, both personal and commercial.? Without those guarantees, why would anyone bother?? If you are not safe in your own home or your own business, why take the financial risks required to own it?
Today, large stores and malls are evidently considered “for public use.”? These “public uses” supersede the rights of the elderly, the ill, the poor and all other property owners… except Justice Souter.
Too many people cannot afford to go to court to fight government and its access to all of the lawyers we taxpayers make available to them.? They lose their homes. ??Small businesses cannot afford to hire lawyers to fight for what’s theirs.? They lose their companies.
Anyone who does not think this has an impact on how many people are willing to risk their assets to start a new business and create new jobs needs to get the rest of the candles on their cake lit.
If one does not own one’s own home, how much more at risk is one’s business?
What was it Jesus said as he threw vendors from the steps of the Temple? I believe it was “Oh, ye hypocrites!”
Marilyn Barnewall, in 1978, was the first female to be named vice president in charge of a major loan and deposit portfolio at Denver’s largest bank. She started the nation’s first private bank, resigned to start her own firm and consulted for banks of all sizes in America and other countries. In June 1992, Forbes dubbed Barnewall “the dean of American private banking.” Author of several banking texts, she has written extensively for the American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, and was U.S. consulting editor for Private Banker International (Lafferty Publications, London/Dublin). Article originally appeared in the Grand Junction Free Press. Marilyn can be reached at [email protected].
The 2 things Trump can do to make himself the GOAT president
Wayne Allyn Root