The Bill of Rights: Eminent Domain
, by Jacob G. Hornberger
, Freedom Daily
, Dec 2004
Discusses the eminent domain protections of the Fifth Amendment and how they were undermined by cases such as Berman v. Parker
(1954) and Poletown
(1981), and the positive outcome of Wayne County v. Hathcock
The original purpose of eminent domain was to enable government officials to acquire property to establish places from which to run the government. The idea was that in order for the government to operate, it would need, for example, courthouses. Thus, eminent domain supplied government officials with the power to seize a person's property for that purpose but on the condition that government officials paid the owner for it. While the "public use" and "just compensation" limitations serve as a check on the power of eminent domain, over time the power has increasingly been abused, especially with respect to the concept of "public use."
Confessions of a Welfare Queen: How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars
, by John Stossel
, Mar 2004
Discusses the National Flood Insurance Program, subsidies to farmers and farm corporations (such as Archer Daniels Midland) and Donald Trump's attempt to use eminent domain to expand a casino in Atlantic City
The legal doctrine of "eminent domain" (which means "superior ownership") allows government officials to take possession of your property if they decide they need it for the greater good. Traditionally this meant building highways, bridges, and parks, and eminent domain was used only in unusual situations. But today government officials use eminent domain to help private companies ... Donald Trump ... wanted to expand one of his casinos in Atlantic City. Vera Coking was in the way ... New Jersey's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit in 1994 to "acquire" Coking's property.
The Constitution or Liberty
, by Sheldon Richman
, The Goal Is Freedom
, 7 Dec 2007
Contrasts Article II of the Articles of Confederation with the Tenth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and discusses the implied powers doctrine (a revised version was published in The Freeman
, Jan/Feb 2008)
We know that the Constitution must have contained implied powers from the beginning. Article I, Section 9, expressly prohibits Congress from doing certain things, such as passing ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, granting titles of nobility, and interfering with the slave trade until 1808. Why would such prohibitions have been thought necessary if Congress could exercise only the enumerated powers? Another example: The Fifth Amendment limits the power of eminent domain, but the Constitution itself does not enumerate any power of eminent domain. It must be implied.
Crony-in-Chief: Donald Trump epitomizes Ayn Rand's "Aristocracy of Pull"
, by Steve Simpson, 2 Feb 2017
Examines the issues of "cronyism" or "pull-peddling", suggesting—as Ayn Rand did—that the solution is "to limit government strictly to protecting rights and nothing more"
In the early 1990s, Atlantic City resident Vera Coking found herself in the sights of a developer who wanted to turn the property on which she lived into a casino parking lot. The developer made what he thought was a good offer, but she refused. The developer became incensed, and instead of further trying to convince Coking to sell or finding other land, he did what a certain kind of businessman has increasingly been able to do ... He pursued a political "solution." He convinced a city redevelopment agency to use the power of eminent domain to force Coking to sell. The developer was Donald Trump.
Dictatorship of Gadflies
, by James Bovard
, Freedom Daily
, Nov 1998
Discusses the efforts of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and similar groups to preserve much broader targets than historically meaningful buildings
Politicians and bureaucrats must learn to respect the most important historic treasure in this country—the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights declares that private property shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The preservation police are preventing the natural flux of change and suppressing potentially new beauty and innovations arising from individual decisions about their own property, which may, 50 years hence, be regarded as even greater national landmarks.
Does the Market Commodify Everything?
, by Thomas Woods, Mises Daily
, 18 Sep 2006
Contrasts the behavior of participants in a free market vs. the state's attitude towards those it considers its subjects
With the state ... the price is whatever the state says it is. It will provide services you do not want, will never use, and may even find morally repugnant, and then tell you what you must pay for them. In the case of eminent domain, where the state confiscates your property for its own purposes, you will be paid something, but the state itself will decide exactly what it will pay you. How is this preferable to a world in which each individual is allowed to declare the terms on which he will dispose of his person and property, and in which no exchange takes place unless both parties voluntarily agree to it?
, by Sheldon Richman
, 30 Oct 2006
Discusses a case in Riviera Beach, Florida where a developer was threatening to sue the city council for reneging on a supposed deal to use eminent domain on an area for private redevelopment
Ever since last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, cities have had the green light to take people's property for private redevelopment projects. The victims of eminent domain are usually working-class people who are forced to sacrifice their homes for the sake of luxury homes and shops. Sure, they get paid something, but it's not a true market price and some of these folks don't want to move at any price. Fortunately, the Court ruling unleashed a public backlash ..., and in response, over 20 states ... passed restrictions on their cities' power to take people's homes for private development.
The Eminent-Domain Origin of Shenandoah National Park
, by Bart Frazier, Freedom Daily
, Sep 2006
The establishment of Shenandoah National Park in 1926 is one of the greatest abuses of eminent domain in our country's history. ... It is cases such as this that display the vile nature of government takings, and it would be a proud day for our country should men one day become wise enough to decide that the use of eminent domain should be discarded completely.
An End to Eminent Domain Abuse?
, by George Leef, Freedom Daily
, Apr 2005
Published just two months before the unfortunate Kelo v. City of New London
U.S. Supreme Court decision, expresses hope that the court would rectify the 1954 Berman v. Parker
Among the many ways in which American citizens have become less secure at the hands of government is the possibility that they will be victimized by eminent domain ... The ... Fifth Amendment states that government shall not take private property except for "public use" and must then pay "just compensation" for it. Sad to say, governments now routinely take land for projects that can be termed "public use" only by distorting the meaning of words, and ... the owners seldom receive anything close to "just compensation." For many landowners, eminent domain is merely a fancy term for a legal mugging.
The Federal Ripoff
, by George Leef, Freedom Daily
, Nov 2006
Review of The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money
(2006) by Timothy P. Carney
Another means by which business gains from governmental power is the seizure of land by eminent domain. Carney recounts several stories of small business owners who found themselves facing eviction from their property because it was coveted by some large developer ... Cheap land is alluring to business, and the prospect of higher tax revenues is alluring to politicians. The fact that eminent domain means the use of force against people—who usually are not fully compensated for their loss—does not trouble either big business moguls or their political henchmen.
The Invisible Hand Is a Gentle Hand
, by Sharon Harris
, 14 Sep 1998
Originally published at HarryBrowne.org; defends the free market and individual liberty, quoting among others Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, David and Milton Friedman, John Lott, Isabel Paterson, Proudhon, Adam Smith, Sowell, John Stossel and Walter Williams
The IRS can freeze your bank account or put a lien on your house without a hearing of any kind. And government can take property through eminent domain. Recently near my home the county government forced a black church to sell its land to make room for a tunnel. The so-called "fair" price paid wasn't enough to rebuild the church. A whole church community will be displaced for a bureaucrats' idea of progress. In a free society, not only would this not happen to a church, but there'd be no BATF to burn churches down [as happened in Waco, Texas]. Is your church BATF-approved?
Related Topics: Right to Keep and Bear Arms
, War on Drugs
, Free Market
, David D. Friedman
, Health Care
, Private Property
, Adam Smith
, Social Security Tax
, Lysander Spooner
"Liberal" Court Okays Eminent Domain Abuse
, by George Leef, 1 Jul 2005
Discusses the U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 decision, in favor of the defendants, in Kelo v. City of New London
The Constitution allows government to take private property only where it is for a "public use" and only when just compensation is paid. Going back to 1954, the Court has allowed property seizures where the reason is not for the construction of some item of public infrastructure, such as a road or bridge, but for a private investment where it is alleged that there will be a public benefit. The plaintiff in Kelo sought to have the Court draw a sharp line between the former category and the latter. Sad to say, the Court declined to do so; with its blessing, eminent domain abuse will continue.
A Man's Home Is His Castle
, by Wendy McElroy
, Freedom Daily
, Jul 2006
A review of the movie The Castle
(1997) and its main theme: eminent domain
The Castle ... is also a movie about eminent domain: the so-called right of a government to seize private property for a public use, such as a freeway, in exchange for what the government deems to be fair-market value. Thus the movie's title spins off the maxim, 'A man's home is his castle.' ... The U.S. Supreme Court had just rendered a decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which is now infamously and simply known as Kelo. The Supreme Court ruled that the city could use eminent domain to transfer private property from its owners to a private entity that wishes to use it in a 'better' economic manner.
More Victims of Immigration Control
, by Sheldon Richman
, 18 Jan 2008
Discusses how, aside from actual immigrants, American employers and particularly property owners along the United States-Mexico border are also victims of U.S. immigration controls, in the government's attempt to build a fence along the border
Apparently, at least some of 102 landowners fear the government will steal their land—using the euphemism "eminent domain"—to build a fence to keep independent immigrants out of the country. Who can blame them for not letting the federal agents on their land? Eminent domain is the doctrine that government is the ultimate landlord of the country and people hold their property at the pleasure of the state. If it wants the land, it can take it. To be sure, the Constitution says it has to pay for the land. But there can be no "just compensation" in a forced sale. What makes compensation just is consent ...
Political Plundering of Property Owners
, by James Bovard
, Nov 2002
Details the effects of local government land and property seizures allegedly for urban renewal purposes, for improving "blighted" neighborhoods or for the benefit of sports team owners
The Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that "one person's property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid." ... Between 1949 and 1971, ... urban renewal razed five times as many low-income housing units as it created and evicted more than one million people from their homes ... a federal district court struck down a Washington, D.C., land-seizure program in 1953 ... But in November 1954, the Supreme Court overturned the federal district court and effectively gave government officials unlimited power to confiscate and redistribute land.
The Supreme Court Repeals the Constitution
, by Sheldon Richman
, Freedom Daily
, Sep 2005
Discusses the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London
(2005), with emphasis on the dissenting opinions of O'Connor and Thomas
As a matter of law, this principle is a vestige of absolute monarchy and is contrary to the libertarian spirit of the American founding ... As a matter of logic, no "just compensation" is possible in a forced sale of property, because the only just price is the one freely negotiated by seller and buyer. What makes a transaction morally legitimate is not compensation but consent. Eminent-domain cases are distinguished precisely by their lack of the seller's consent. It's an unfortunate historical fact that the American Founders did not abolish the power of eminent domain.
Test your freedom IQ
, The Orange County Register
, 18 Jun 2006
20 multiple-choice questions covering the role of government, free enterprise, taxes, property rights, free speech, religion, civil liberties, transportation, war and foreign policy, the Nanny State, gun ownership, education and immigration
7. A large retail company, such as Costco or Wal-Mart, has offered a city significant tax benefits if the city uses eminent domain to take an older strip mall of small businesses and give the big-box retailer the choice location. City Council members:
a) Have every right to do so ...
b) Should hire a firm to do a study and hold public meetings ...
c) Should tell the big retail company to find another city to hornswoggle. Property rights are the foundation of American life—whether you're a single homeowner or Donald Bren—even if, in Kelo, a slim high court majority was too foolish to see it.
Takings Exception: An Interview with Richard Epstein
, by Richard Epstein
, Steve Chapman, Reason
, Apr 1995
Interview topics include libertarian ideas, Epstein's book Takings
, the public housing and inner city issues, and civil rights laws
Epstein: ... What was really needed was a coherent hearing which started from the ground up and took the very simple position that any time you impose a restriction on land use, the state has to either justify the restriction or pay for the value that is being deprived ... But that was never done ...
[People] think that for every dollar that the public body wins, the individual loses a dollar. What typically happens is the public wins $1.00 and private owners lose $5.00 or $10. If you do that hundreds upon hundreds of times each year, you have a major drain on the social welfare of the community.
Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain
by Richard Epstein
Partial contents: Philosophical Preliminaries - Hobbesian Man, Lockean World - Takings Prima Facie - Justifications for Takings - Public Use and Just Compensation - Explicit Compensation - Implicit In-Kind Compensation - Tort - Regulation - Taxation