Posts in "Private Property Rights"

BrianMUGA's picture
By Brian Underwood at 4:25PM

Eminent Domain -- Lasting Tyranny

Although the U.S. Constitution set up the most successful republican government to date with a generally incredible respect for individual liberties, it is not without its faults. Yes,  the American people improved upon (and sometimes detracted from) the original document as time went on, but one of the continual flaws in the Constitution existed at its inception: eminent domain.

At the time, governments routinely commandeered property from private citizens for any purpose they desired. The Founding Fathers, aware of that tradition, decided to limit it by requiring in the 5th Amendment that all takings relate to one of the enumerated duties of Congress (i.e. "for public use") and that the owners be given "just compensation." This does not make any taking moral since it is still done forcefully, but it was a step forward in human progress.

Unfortunately, in 1954, the Supreme Court took us two steps back by unanimously ruling in Berman v. Parker that the government could arbitrarily take unblighted property ("unblighted" because it had already been taking blighted property without justification) so long as it possessed some "public purpose" -- in this case, making Washington, D.C. "beautiful as well as sanitary."


Read more here
Adam Fowler's picture
By Adam Fowler at 8:29PM

California's Balance Between Free Speech and Property

Over at my personal blog, I've posted more on California's approach to balancing free-speech and property rights. That topic stems from the comments thread from a post I made on the YAL blog last week concering a suit against a California mall for restricting speech.

Here is an excerpt from the new post:

One notable point made in the comments thread involved the case of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980).

In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could extend rights beyond that of the U.S. Constitution so long as doing so does not violate rights protected by the Constitution. The case dealt with the California Supreme Court ruling that their constitution’s protection of free speech allowed for individuals to exercise their free-speech rights in a private shopping mall, despite the wishes of the mall owners. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the California Supreme Court that this did not violate the mall owner’s property rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

Read the entire post here.

William Stewart's picture
By William Stewart-starks at 6:08PM
William Stewart's picture
By William Stewart-starks at 7:55PM

Allman Brothers Bassist Defends Rand Paul's Civil Rights Act Comments

Part 2 of the video is here.  Below, the Bassist of Allman Brothers, an African American, defends Rand Paul on Civil Rights Act position:

Rachel,

I am a 45 year old Black American male who loves your show but I strongly disagree with you about your position on Rand Paul. Just so you know I voted for Obama and Kerry because I was horrified by both Bush and Palin respectively. Here's where I disagree with you.


Read more here