Property Rights Dbq Essay

Our constitutional liberties referencing property rights have faded over the years by virtue of the over-reach of the federal government by their collusions and conspiracies among the different branches; thereby, infringing on the rights of individuals and the states. For example, the Constitution does not grant the national government jurisdiction over education, housing, agriculture, or energy; however, they have gotten around this by creating cabinet/committee level status (e.g., HUD, FTC, FDA, OSHA, SEC, EPA) in D.C. by Congress, administered by the executive branch with the court?s approval. James Madison captured the essence of federalism in The Federalist No. 45. He condemned the aggregation of all powers (legislative, executive, and judicial) in the same hands; whether of one, few, or the majority; whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may legitimatize the very definition of tyranny. James Madison, Property: The Founders Constitution, (Vol 1. Chap. 16. Document 23. 29 March 1792).
Many elected officials no longer view themselves as representatives of the people, but rather, entitled ?leaders.? As opposed to raising revenues, they subvert private property rights by imposing unfunded mandates on the people (e.g., Obamacare, employer mandates). Madison?s words decrying the issues of

mutable policy have been drown out amidst a flood of an ever wider advocacy for a socialist agenda and big government.
The most definitive understanding of private property comes in the Fifth Amendment which states ?Nor shall [anyone] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.??The ?takings?

clause requires all levels of government to reasonably compensate owners for property taken for public use; however, it is a relatively watered-down protection of private property; ergo, the government can still impose taxes and acquire resources for public use. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS), contrary to the constitution, has not strictly confined the federal government to its enumerated

powers.
SCOTUS has decided that when property is taken by eminent domain, it would be impracticable to consider subjective value in determining the compensation to which the takee is entitled; subscribing that fair market value is a compromise. Karina Myriam Wyman, The Measure of Just Compensation, 252 256 (Vol. 41. No. 1. 2007). Furthermore, in Kelo v. City of New London, SCOTUS gave a green light to the transfer to wealthy developers and corporations. Fortunately, the majority of voters and elected officials viewed SCOTUS? decision as a real threat to be deterred. Within a little more than a year of Kelo, 29 states had enhanced their statutes and constitutions to prohibit or substantially limit the use of eminent domain to protect ordinary citizens against the covetous predations of bureaucrats and unscrupulous businesses. Ronald Utt, Ph.D., States Vote to Strengthen Property Rights, ?50 (1 February 2005).
Regulatory taking also occurs when the government allows the property owner to keep the land but greatly restricts freedom of use. Utt, supra at 3. Zoning and growth boundaries are the most common forms of regulatory taking at the state and local levels. Utt, supra at 4. At the Federals level environmental laws (e.g., Species Act, Clean Water Act) give preference over the rights of property owners. Utt, supra at 4.
The expansive context of the takings clause is no alternative for the judicial protection of property liberties under the due process clause. A family who wants to remain their home despite the futile attempts of takees? expropriation should have this right; additionally, prospective businessmen/women have the right to enter the market. The Constitution nor the rule of law can long endure the corruption of a misinformed public. As Americans, it is our task to educate ourselves. We must remember the words of our founders, the wisdom of economists, and the lessons of history. We must take a stand to use our voices and votes to turn back the 21st Century hypocrites of our property, the regulatory lords in D.C.