Posts in "Private Property Rights"

Mecca's Misery Prompted by Government Non-Protection of Private Property Rights

Jayel Aheram
Mar 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM
By Jayel Aheram

Desert Sun

The Desert Sun just published an exhaustive investigation into the awful stench besieging the town of Mecca, a poverty-stricken community on the outskirts of the Coachella Valley. This is even more shocking considering that the Valley is home to the tourist spot Palm Springs, and plays host to a variety of national and international news-making events like Coachella Music Festival and Stagecoach (music), the BNP Paribas Open (tennis), and PGA Tour’s Humana Challenge (golf).

Executive editor Greg Burton wrote in Sunday’s editorial:

There is no greater calling in journalism than to demand accountability. When reporters press powerful people and institutions for answers, we all are beneficiaries. Government enacts positive reform, pocketbooks are protected, neighbors stop suffering.

When reporters dig for answers, they find people like Angelina Guillen. She and her husband, Aurelio Leon, and their two children built their dream home in Mecca only to be subjected to sickening odors from a nearby, loosely regulated waste recycler.

Eminent Domain -- Lasting Tyranny

Brian Underwood
Jul 17, 2011 at 5:25 PM
By Brian Underwood

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."

California's Balance Between Free Speech and Property

Adam Fowler
Jul 5, 2010 at 9:29 PM
By Adam Fowler

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.

Ron Paul Responds to Philosophical Position on CRA

Will Stewart-Starks
May 21, 2010 at 7:08 PM
By Will Stewart-Starks

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

Will Stewart-Starks
May 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM
By Will Stewart-Starks

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.