[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: We’re All Trespassers Now in the Face of the Government’s Land Grabs “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.” — John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States We have no real property rights. Think about it. That house you live in, the car you drive, the small (or not so small) acreage of land that has been passed down through your family or that you scrimped and saved to acquire, whatever money you manage to keep in your bank account after the government and its cronies have taken their first and second and third cut…none of it is safe from the government’s greedy grasp. At no point do you ever have any real ownership in anything other than the clothes on your back. Everything else can be seized by the government under one pretext or another (civil asset forfeiture, unpaid taxes, eminent domain, public interest, etc.). The American Dream has been reduced to a lease arrangement in which we are granted the privilege of endlessly paying out the nose for assets that are only ours so long as it suits the government’s purposes. And when it doesn’t suit the government’s purposes? Watch out. This is not a government that respects the rights of its citizenry or the law. Rather, this is a government that sells its citizens to the highest bidder and speaks to them in a language of force. Under such a fascist regime, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declares that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” has become yet another broken shield, incapable of rendering any protection against corporate greed while allowing the government to justify all manner of “takings” in the name of the public good. As journalist Eric Williamson notes, “From controversial projects such as President Donald Trump’s border wall and the gas pipelines, to more mundane works such as road expansion, just about any project deemed in the public interest can mean taking your property is fair game.” Practically anything goes now. It’s been 13 years since the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of Kelo v. City of New London, which expanded the government’s limited power to acquire private lands in order to build a public structure like a school or highway for “public use” and allowed it to make seizures for a “public purpose,” which in the government’s eyes can mean anything as long as it amounts to higher tax revenue. In Kelo, the City of New London, Conn., wanted to condemn private homes as “blighted” in order to tear them down and allow a developer to build higher-priced homes, a resort hotel, a conference center and retail complexes to complement a new Pfizer pharmaceutical plant in the area. Ironically, the developers in New London later backed out of the deal after the homes were seized and bulldozed, leaving the once quaint neighborhood a wasteland. Nevertheless, a shortsighted Supreme Court gave city officials the go-ahead, ruling 5-4 that a city government—aligned with large corporate interests—could use the power of eminent domain to seize an entire neighborhood for development purposes, entire neighborhoods have been seized and bulldozed to make way for shopping malls, sports complexes and corporate offices. “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property,” warned Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in a stinging dissent. “Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.” Unfortunately, nothing has prevented the government from bulldozing its way through the Fifth Amendment in an effort to take from the middle and lower classes and fatten the coffers of the corporate elite. In the wake of Kelo, at least 16 places of worship (which pay no taxes) were taken for private uses (which will generate tax dollars). Other attempted takings include the transfer of three family-owned seafood businesses to a larger private marina in Texas; the transfer of farmland to a shopping center anchored by a Lowe’s in Illinois; developing 233 low-income and elderly families’ properties into a senior community where townhouses cost more than $350,000 in New Jersey; and developing middle-income, single-family homes on the waterfront into more expensive condominiums in New Jersey. Even Donald Trump has taken advantage of eminent domain, in one instance attempting to take an elderly woman’s house to make way for a limousine parking lot. As an investigative report by the Institute for Justice notes, over the course of five years, local governments used eminent domain to lay claim to more than 10,000 homes, businesses, churches and private land for private business development, including condemning a family’s home so that the manager of a planned new golf course could live in it; evicting four elderly siblings from their home of 60 years for a private industrial park; and removing a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years supposedly to expand a sewer plant, only to turn around and give her home to an auto dealership. Fast forward to the present day, and you’ve got the government’s pipeline projects as a prime example of eminent domain being employed for corporate gain. All across the country, power companies have been given the green light to build massive gas and oil pipelines that crisscross the country, cutting through private and public lands, as well as unspoiled wilderness. “Yet despite oft-repeated claims by politicians and oil executives about the danger of relying on foreign oil, this U.S. petroleum renaissance never was designed to make America energy self-sufficient,” points out journalist Sandy Tolan. “A growing amount of that oil will end up in China, Japan, the Netherlands, even Venezuela.” So much for the public use, huh? These pipeline projects which are getting underway in a dozen states have stirred up a hornet’s nest of protests, most notably in Standing Rock, North Dakota, where activists attempting to block the completion of Dakota Access Pipeline were subjected to militarized police, riot and camouflage gear, armored vehicles, mass arrests, pepper spray, tear gas, drones, less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force, rubber bullets, water cannons, concussion grenades, arrests of journalists, intimidation tactics, and brute force. Not all of the protests that have arisen in response to these pipeline projects hinge on environmental concerns, which are significant in and of themselves in light of water and ground contamination due to leaks and spills. Some of the protesters are landowners, simple farmers and homeowners who merely want the government and its corporate partners-in-crime to keep their grubby paws off their personal property. In Virginia, activists have taken to tree sitting—living for weeks on end in platforms suspended above the ground in trees—as a form of protest over the devastation that is being wrought by these pipelines. These acts of civil disobedience come at a costly price. Pipeline and forestry officials have been working hard to make life as difficult as possible for the protesters, allegedly blocking their access to food and water and medical supplies, shining floodlights into the trees at all hours of the night, creating ground disturbances to dislodge their nests, and urging the courts to levy heavy fines for each day that the work to clear the forests for the pipeline is delayed. Here’s what one resident of Roanoke, Va., wrote to me about the manner in which the Mountain Valley Pipeline is being inflicted on his community: Our small community has been invaded by private security and a fully militarized local police department. Some families up here have land grants from the King, predating the formation of the Commonwealth. Mountain Valley Pipeline has begun cutting trees and has brought in private military contractors similar to what was used in North Dakota. MVP is only offering to pay pennies on the dollar. They are basically using the power of government to steal this land for private profit. What has ensued was the county positioning a mobile command center right across from my restaurant, and scores of police in full tactical dress being deployed. They wasted no time in hooking up with the MVP private security and a long list of offenses then began against the residents and land owners of Bent Mountain, who now find themselves subject to arrest for walking in their own driveway, taking pictures of the pipeline companies ever-changing survey lines and path of destruction, or in more than one case, for confronting MASKED ARMED MEN ON THEIR PROPERTY IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT. It is AMAZING that nobody has been shot yet! One of my neighbors was accosted on his own back porch by police for photographing the MVP surveyors continually moving the corridor of their easement. I have even had armed private security trespassing on my property miles away in neighboring Floyd County. I am all for infrastructure. However, I am not for the taking of people's private land for profit, using the force and power of government, far outside of the bounds of the Constitution. It takes a lot of gall to trespass onto someone’s private property, tear up their land, cut down their trees, pollute their air and water, prevent them from moving freely on their own property, threaten them with fines and arrests for challenging the intrusion, and then force them to pay (by way of taxes) to retain ownership of the property or sell it cheaply or at a loss so it can be torn down and used for some purpose that the government deems more beneficial to its bottom line. That’s how little respect the government has for our rights. It used to be that you could post a “No Trespassing” sign on your property to send the message that no one could venture onto your private property without your permission. As the Tennessee Supreme Court recognized in State v. Christensen, “a homeowner who posts a ‘No Trespassing’ sign is simply making explicit what the law already recognizes: that persons entering onto another person’s land must have a legitimate reason for doing so or risk being held civilly, or perhaps even criminally, liable for trespass.” Unfortunately, American taxpayers have become trespassers on their own property thanks to the government’s ongoing land grabs and utter disregard for property rights. So much for that whole pipedream about one’s home being one’s castle. When it comes right down to it, the right to property is the first—and last—right, and perhaps the most inherent. The undermining and dissolution of this critical right may well prove to be one of the few things to rouse the American people to action. As polls show, Americans have been willing to accept limitations on their rights to free speech, privacy and due process, as well as other important freedoms, in exchange for the phantom promise of security. Yet whether they live in a modest two-bedroom walkup in the Bronx or a mansion in Bel Air, Americans have not been quite as willing to barter away their right to property. In this way, we are not so far removed from the revolutionary spirit that saw a ragtag assortment of colonists standing up to the military might of Great Britain. The signing of the Declaration of Independence marked a new beginning for our nation. It signaled a shift in the balance of power from one in which the people served an elite ruling class to one in which government was instituted to serve the people. The government’s role would not be to create or define the people’s inherent rights but rather to guarantee their protection. As the Declaration states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Declaration, which embodied all the passion, outrage and noble ideals of the day, could easily have ended there. But the Founders understood that in order for the newly born nation to survive, it would need more than revolutionary sentiment. It would require a government that existed to serve the people, not itself, and a contract to guarantee basic liberties and bind the union together. Thus was the U.S. Constitution born in the summer of 1787. It sprang forth from the experiences of a revolutionary generation, still wary of the strong arm of government. And from that wariness came the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to our Constitution are intended as a blueprint to keep the government in its place, off our backs and away from our property. For early Americans, the right to own property was fundamental to all other rights. Mind you, the term “property” is much more fundamental and personal than just with land ownership. It refers to a kind of sovereignty over one’s life and possessions—especially one’s money. Again, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Property is grouped in the same category as life and liberty in the Fifth Amendment because it is difficult to enjoy life and liberty without the stability, security and assurances that property provides. Private property, at a minimum, checks governmental power for it provides the citizen a right of space where even government agents cannot intrude without proper authority. At its core, the American dream is about gaining sovereignty over one’s life and property. Without this sovereignty—this unshakeable guarantee of ownership and dominion, even over one’s own life—there can be no true liberty or freedom. This most sacred of rights is under siege. More than 200 years after early Americans went to war over their right to life, liberty and property, “we the people” have been reduced to little more than serfs in bondage, indentured servants, and sharecroppers. If the government can tell you what you can and cannot do within the privacy of your home, whether it relates to what you eat, what you smoke or whom you love, you’re not the King or Queen in your little castle. If government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you no longer have any property interests in your home. If school officials can punish your children for what they do or say while at home or in your care, your children are not your own—they are the property of the state. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if police can forcefully draw your blood, strip search you, and probe you intimately, your body is no longer your own, either. This is what a world without true property rights looks like, where the lines between private and public property have been so blurred that private property is reduced to little more than something the government can use to control, manipulate and harass you to suit its own purposes, and you the homeowner and citizen have been reduced to little more than a tenant in bondage to an inflexible landlord. In other words, we’re slaves. If you have no choice, no voice, and no real options when it comes to the government’s claims on your property and your money, you’re not free. You’re not free if the government can seize your home and your car (which you’ve bought and paid for) over nonpayment of taxes. You’re not free if government agents can freeze and seize your bank accounts and other valuables if they merely “suspect” wrongdoing. And you’re certainly not free if the IRS gets the first cut of your salary to pay for government programs over which you have no say. After all, a government that doesn’t respect the rights of its citizens will have even less regard for their property, be it land, money or personhood. So where does that leave us? Battling for our lives, liberties and property. Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the battle to protect our private property has become the final constitutional frontier, the last holdout against our freedoms being usurped. Questions about who has ultimate control over our money, how much of it can be claimed by government and how it gets spent go to the heart of the battle over property rights. Remember, governments generate no wealth on their own. Any resources that they have at their disposal have been appropriated from the original producers of that wealth, the citizens. This fundamental truth has largely been downplayed over the years, because the government doesn’t want us to remember that it exists to serve at our pleasure and for our common good. Yet any government that ceases to serve this function risks being declared illegitimate. It happened once before. It can happen again. All it takes is the right spark to start a revolution.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, sneakypete (#0)
(Edited)
Not exactly. The main resource - the land and what is beneath was forcefully seized by the government from the previous owners - Indian tribes. The land was created by God, not by the tribesmen or citizens. That is why England is "held of the Crown" deriving from the Norman conquest and that is why there is the Eminent Domain in USA. What you have in mind is true "allodial title" that might occur in the lands under Napoleonic legal influences. Very rare in America. "Libertarians and tax protestors who argue that the government has no right to tell them what to do are ignoring the essential truth that by law all residents of any given country are really just tenants with a landlord wealthy enough to field their own military." Maybe Vicomte13 can elaborate?
Did those tribes have a recognized title to that land? Of course not. The entire area that is now the United States was a commons, not "owned" by anyone. You might argue with some success that lands occupied directly by Indian tribes or permanent villages occupied for centuries were "owned". But those would only entail a tiny fraction of 1% of the lands of what became the United States. The vast, vast majority of Indian lands were occupied seasonally and changed hands between warring tribes on a regular basis because they were hunter-gatherers.
You missed the point. Might makes right and the law. Indians were weaker.
I think you were pretty accurate. In Common Law countries, we hold land in "fee", which is to say, we have been granted tenure, by the Crown, in a fief. And what the Crown grants, the Crown can revoke.
Recognized by whites who wanted it? No tribe ever had that. And they didn't have the power to keep their traditional foraging lands and hunting grounds, so they lost them. History is an ugly business.
"residents of any given country are really just tenants with a landlord wealthy enough to field their own military." There is only one way to become true allodial owner of one's own land. Field the military and win.
Eminent domain is as old as the republic and specifically provided for by the 5th Amendment. 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 offense 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.
I think you overlook an essential truth: an arrangement to recognize land ownership and its legal transfer and leasing is an essential part of any real civilization. You cannot progress very far without having this as a feature of your legal system. Land must become a commodity, rather early in the history of a civilization. Lacking the binding and durable power of land ownership, you are relegated to being nomadic hunter-gatherers and easy pickings for any organized armed colonists who are based in a civilization of titled land ownership. As has happened many times in history, regardless of the ethnicity of the colonists or aborigines.
Eminent Domain is as old as the first conquest and seizure of Indian land. Long before the Republic.
No, the issue is not whether you have "binding and durable power of land ownership", but whether you can defeat the other side by force. Anglo-Saxons were quite civilized (while vanquishing even higher civilized Celts) yet Normans won and established their own "binding and durable power of land ownership". "One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” If you cannot be both you will lose everything. " in the actions of all men, and most of all of Princes, where there is no tribunal to which we can appeal, we look to results. Wherefore if a Prince succeeds in establishing and maintaining his authority, the means will always be judged honourable and be approved by every one. For the vulgar are always taken by appearances and by results, and the world is made up of the vulgar, the few only finding room when the many have no longer ground to stand on."
And then you hold that alloidal title until such time as a greater force beats you. Yes, the law of tooth and claw ULTIMATELY prevails in all human politics. Civilization means sheathing the claws and covering the teeth as much as is reasonably possible. The Indians did not have to be driven off as they were. The Quakers in Pennsylvania that land could be obtained, with greater success and peace than in any other colony by far, through peaceful and open means. But that meant accepting the Indians as equals and fellow men under God, not as enemies. The rest of the White world was not sufficiently Christian to be able to even remotely consider that. The Quakers also abolished slavery there, in 1700, but the English courts reimposed it as a "fundamental right of Englishmen". It took another century and a half for the English to get there themselves (and there, it was thanks to the Quakers also). My point: during the time of colonization and religious horror and war in Europe, there actually WERE Christians who "got it" and who were more civilized than even we have managed to get today. And it worked in spades. Pennsylvania was one of the last colonies founded, but it was the most successful by the time of the Revolution - Philadelphia was the US Capitol BECAUSE it had grown to be the largest city by good measure, because it was a favorable place for ANYBODY to immigrate too - thanks to the ideas of tolerance and brotherly love. The Quakers bought land at market price and treated the Indians as equals, and they never had any wars with them or any acts of violence. The Indians, for their part, readily distinguished between the Quakers and everybody else. They attacked the Scotch-Irish with vigor, but they never attacked the Quakers. There WAS another way. And a better one. I stand with the Quakers, and think that is the proven superior model. Equal rights for all, by 1700, no slavery, male-female equality under the law, women voting, single pricing (no haggling in the marketplace), and no Indian wars or displacements. Everybody treated fairly. This is not an Anglo-Saxon (or French, or Spanish, or anybody) concept. It's pure Christianity, and it is demonstrably superior to the other models: Pennsylvania was the most attractive colony on account of it, and the Quakers had no Indian wars. Too bad people preferred being English Protestants and Spanish Catholics over being Christian Quakers. So, when the notion is presented that things "Had to be..." a certain way, there is a very strong counterexample that puts the lie to that. Actually, when people FULLY behave like Christians in all things, the society is MUCH better. But people don't WANT to REALLY be Christians. They want to SAY they're Christians. Which is not the same thing at all.
I look at the way that the Quakers worked with the Indians in Pennsylvania, and vice versa, and recognize that there was a very successful alternative model that made the Indians actually WANT to live in peace with the whites, such that they successfully did so for the better part of a century. Christianity works, where it is really tried. To my knowledge, the only place where it has ever been really and truly tried is Quaker Pennsylvania, and it was superior to any system of government that existed before, or since. So of course the other whites went there, and then submerged it. Sort of like what happens in the bucolic states around California and Massachusetts. People find the bucolic places nice, so they emigrate in droves from their current dystopias. And then they vote to impose in their new place what made the place whence they came so terrible. Everybody faces a fundamental choice: Am I am American (or Russian, or whatever) or am I a Christian? Am I a Republican or am I a Christian? Am I a conservative, or am I a Christian? Am I a capitalist (or a socialist), or am I a Christian? Am I a nationalist, or am I a Christian? Am I an "eye-for-an-eye" type of person, or am I a Christian? Most choose not to be a Christian, because Christianity is quite limiting in terms of the use of power, and in terms of the ability to obtain security through the accumulation of great wealth. Most people do not trust God. But hypocrisy is the hommage that vice renders to virtue, so most people go through the motions of pretending to be Christian, and calling themselves that, and maintain some of the trappings of it, without changing their hearts or their minds on anything "important". Just know this: the Christian model of government has a proven history of working, and working really WELL. It's the reason that Philadelphia was the first US capital. But the Christian model was suppressed in favor of what we have, including our land law. Did Quakers hold title? Sure. But it wasn't important. They bought the land for a fair price, not a bargain price, and they tended to the hardship of these people living in the woods, and did not exploit them. And if their government had needed to take a piece of land, it too would pay a completely fair price, a mechanism that our government practices nowhere. The practice of condemn first, and then "fair value" is the worth in the market of condemned land, means that "fair price is about a quarter of actual fair price. The whole system isn't fair. People hate Kelo, but the Republicans have never made overturning it a political plank. Neither have Democrats. Power-mad bastards play games, but they never act in truth and right.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|