Dred Scott Revisited

The rights of man…

Something has just happened that has me very frightened…I have always believed that I lived in the country with the highest regard for individual rights and personal liberty in the world. I have been proud of the documents that define our liberties and “inalienable” rights… of our Constitution. Yesterday, I first heard of a decision by the US Supreme Court that violates our fundamental right to personal property as defined in the Bill of Rights.

A city in Connecticut took a woman’s home to allow a shopping mall developer to use the land. The city used the law of Eminent Domain, which allows for the forfeiture of property for “the public good”. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, and basically forfeited our property rights. The law of Eminent Domain gives a government authority the right to take property that is identified as “blighted” to be used for the “public good”. The woman in CT lived in a well kept home and it stretches the idea of public good to the breaking point to include turning confiscated property over to a private developer. Basically, her home was taken because the shopping mall (or whatever else was being planned) offered a better tax revenue to the city.

From my perspective, the Supreme Court has removed one of our primary rights as defined in the Constitution and has opened up the possibility that the government might be able to take any of our homes or property under the weakest of pretexts.

The following is copied from the Ayn Rand Institute:

What justifies this treatment of Kelo and the other owners, who simply want to be free to live on their own property? The seizures and transfers, the government says, are in "the public interest"--because they will lead to more jobs for New London residents and more tax dollars for the government. This type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property. The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99¢ Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: "99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?"

To such government officials, the fact that an individual earns a piece of property and wants to use and enjoy it, is of no importance--all that matters is "the public." But as philosopher Ayn Rand observed, "there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals . . . .the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." In the context of the Kelo case, the idea that "the public interest" trumps private property rights simply means that the desires of some individuals for property they did not earn and cannot get from others voluntarily trump the rights of those who did earn it and do not want to sell it. Why are their rights trumped? Because some gang with political pull doesn't happen to like how these individuals are using their property.

This is unjust and un-American. America was founded on the principle of individual rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What do these rights mean if an individual is not free to remain in and enjoy the house he chooses to build his life around, simply because others are clamoring for a shopping mall? Just as it would be unjust for the government to shut down the printing presses of a newspaper because its reporting is unpopular, so it is unjust for the government to raze a house that an individual has earned, developed, and loves, no matter how many cry that the land should be put to other use.

If the Supreme Court rules against the property owners in Kelo, then no one's home or business is secure. As Dana Berliner, an attorney for the owners, explains: "If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business then no property in America is safe. Anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."

I am not sure what we as Americans can do about this injustice. I am going to write to the members of the Supreme Court, expressing my concern for the decision and for its impact on individual liberty. I hope others will speak out against this tyranny. We must closely guard our freedoms lest they be swept away by the insidious force of political power.

I am reminded of another decision by our Supreme Court that clearly abridged our inalienable rights as defined by Thomas Jefferson. That decision was the one that took the freedom away from the runaway slave Dred Scott. The Dred Scott decision and the utter hopelessness that it left those who were fighting the scourge of slavery in this land was one of the factors that led to our great Civil War. Let us all pray that those in power are held accountable to the people of this land lest the foundations of our peace and freedoms become unsound. It is the society that does not respect the rights and freedoms of its citizens that is subject to violence and instability. We have been free of these threats for over a century. I hope that an alert populace can keep us safe from the strife that seems so common in the rest of the world.

Link