On Prison Labor and the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments

Written on December 2nd, 2015

Edited on December 6th, 2015

The 13th Amendment didn't "outlaw slavery", it merely legalized "involuntary servitude" except as punishment for a crime. So the prison system is modern-day legalized slavery. Incarcerated inmates in prisons work for slave-level wages, and in fact, Georgia and Texas have laws providing for a maximum wage of $0.00 per hour for such prison laborers.

But the rest of us living outside of brick-and-mortar jails and prisons still have to serve others, by paying taxes on our income, and, in some jurisdictions, serving whomever comes into our businesses.

If we do not do so voluntarily, then we are serving others involuntarily. And since that's only legal as punishment for a crime, we have to ask, if we are being punished, what crime did we commit?

How are refusing to pay taxes, and refusing to serve would-be customers on private property, "crimes", in the real sense of corpus delicti (“body of the crime”, i.e., evidence, i.e., a corpse) meaning that a real harm or taking must result from one person's action, depriving another of legitimate property, or harming them?

They're not. One person's labor, and the product thereof, are not the property of anybody else.

On another note, the 5th Amendment says that no property shall be taken for public use, except with compensation. The federal government took the slaves owned by their masters, but did not compensate the masters.

My point is not that it's too bad they weren't compensated, my point is that the slaves were taken for public use. We, the public, are all being compensated for the slave masters' losses, with the funds gained through slaves' descendants' free-of-cost prison labor and involuntary labor in the "free" economy.

The only difference between 1865 and now is that today, people of all races can be commanded to serve people they don't want as customers, and put in prison and forced to labor for the benefit of others (actually, that's a distortion of fact, because many Irish, Scots, and other whites were held as slaves prior to the end of the Civil War).

So we are now faced with the puzzling condition that we, along with our “duly-elected representatives” who wield partial power of attorney over us, are part-owners of ourselves as involuntary servants.

Ah, breathe that free, free air. Isn't it great?

Indefinite Detention and the 2012 N.D.A.A.

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.

13. Will you support legislation such as the Smith/Amash Amendment to the NDAA of 2012, which would prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens and would ensure full Fifth Amendment rights to due process?

     Yes, I will support legislation such as the Smith/Amash Amendment to prevent the U.S. Armed Forces - under Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, and pursuant to a 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force – from detaining persons suspected of terrorism indefinitely and without legal representation.

     Neither the president nor the secretary of defense should have the authority to detain individuals – let alone indefinitely, without trial, without being allowed to meet with attorneys or family members, anywhere in the world, and for any reason - regardless of the N.D.A.A.'s requirement that the secretary of defense must certify to Congress that such a detention would be in the interest of national security. Any presidential objection to such detention legislation will only be likely to come in the form of signing statements expressing the sentiment that the president already wields this authority himself.

     Furthermore, the aforementioned sections of the 2012 N.D.A.A. are undesirable altogether because they authorize the indefinite detention of individuals suspected of directly supporting hostilities against not just the United States, but its “coalition partners”. If apprehension of foreign nations' direct enemies must occur in the U.S., it can and should be done without denying the suspect the right to a fair trial, and without denying the public the right to exert meaningful influence on how such a person (if found guilty) should be punished.

     Whether citizen or not - and whether (if guilty) they are the enemy of the U.S. or of a foreign nation – domestic terror suspects are innocent until proven guilty. They cannot be denied legal representation, nor the right to a speedy trial within the jurisdiction wherein some real crime was committed. I will support any and all efforts to strengthen the civil liberties enumerated in the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th Amendments to the Constitution; and I will sponsor legislation augmenting the enumerated rights of the accused.

For more entries on homeland security and terrorism, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-heres-what-i-think-happened.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-aurora-batman-massacre.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/national-defense-authorization-act-for.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/september-11th-2001.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/jared-lee-loughner-and-gabrielle.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-response-to-question-about-patriot.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/notes-on-osama-bin-ladens-reported-death.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/airport-security-and-expectation-of-harm.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-israeli-role-in-911.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-transportation-security.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/wiretaps-searches-and-patriot-act.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/identification-and-travel-documents.html

For more entries on high-profile corruption and conspiracy theories, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-vs-hitler-compare-and-contrast.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/02/web-of-conspiracy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/11/corruption-of-america.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/bush-family-world-vision-behind-jfk.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-murders.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-emanuel-family.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/list-of-projects-by-cia-and-affiliated.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/national-defense-authorization-act-for.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/muhammad-subuh-sumohadiwidjojo-barack.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/barack-obama-images.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/barack-obama-universal-sycophant.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/notes-on-duplicity-in-us-foreign-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/wiretaps-searches-and-patriot-act.html

Municipal Services, the Fifth Amendment, and Government as a Business

Written on October 13th and November 22nd, 2011

Edited in April 2014

   Because the right or privilege - whether monopolistic or competitive - to provide municipal public services is licensed by government to private enterprises, the provision of municipal public services is not a social welfare program, nor is it a right, nor should it be conceived of as either.

   As such, an individual's use of a municipal service (if and when such an individual pays for that service to be provided) should not be interpreted as a capitulation or a submission to any and all regulations and processes which might be associated with or endorsed by the government having jurisdiction over whatever given municipality; even when the provision of a service is competitive, and especially when the provision of a service is monopolistic.

   One of the most important functions of the libertarians and the Tea Party thus far has been to get Americans to start conceiving of their government as a business. My candidacy encourages this kind of thinking.

   But not in a way that would recommend that we allow corporate welfare, or allow politicians to profit off of financial deals resulting from the legislation they help write, or allow silly things like the U.S. Department of Commerce to continue to exist, but in a way that requires all delegation of citizen power to their representatives in government to take place through contracts which were not signed under the duress of taxation and threatened imprisonment, and in a way that allows the government to be operated for-profit without fear that politicians who struggle to find legal ways to allow government to get rid of toxic assets like Amtrak and the Post Office so that the people will not have to bear their burden and inherit their debts to be ridiculed as privatization-pushers.

   Those who believe that eminent domain and the Takings Clause should only be used to put private property under the management of the public, but decry the sale of public property to private entities as unconstitutional privatization for the benefit of special interests, are giving the government an unlimited license to grow, and to put its citizens in debt.

   If a government does not practice both eminent domain and privatization, then it should practice neither.

For more entries on Fifth Amendment property takings, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/private-beachfront-property-takings.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/slavery-civil-war-and-fifth-amendment.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/questions-about-roads-eminent-domain.html

For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/loss-of-public-planning-department.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-konkin-schulman-bastiat-and-agorism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-social-libertarianism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/comparative-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/agorism-summary.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/08/panarchist-welfare-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-market-anarchism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-institutional-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/02/agorism-and-mutualism-summaries-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-ron-paul-wrong.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-panarchy-without-adjectives.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/anarchist-kindergarten-open-letter-to.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/nonapartism-in-social-market-economy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/twenty-five-reasons-why-political.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-criticism-of-ron-paul.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/using-profit-incentive-to-promote.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/labor-protectionism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

For more entries on social services, public planning, and welfare, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/loss-of-public-planning-department.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/11/jurisdictional-aterritorialism-bastiat.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-konkin-schulman-bastiat-and-agorism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/agorism-summary.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/08/panarchist-welfare-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-market-anarchism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-anarchism-economists-vs.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/annual-net-contribution-to-us-federal.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/anarchist-kindergarten-open-letter-to.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/nonapartism-in-social-market-economy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/initial-reaction-to-scott-walkers.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/initial-reaction-to-scott-walkers_20.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-proper-role-of-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-general-welfare-clause.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/taxpayer-funded-benefits-for.html

Questions About the Roads, Eminent Domain, and Citizenship

Written on September 10th, 2011

   Say a person is a sovereign individual, and not a citizen of the U.S.. Say he doesn't have a driver's license, and is operating a vehicle that he purchased himself. Say he is driving on a public road, and is not harming anyone (say he cannot be punished unless he harms another person and/or damages their property).

   Say a police officer pulls him over. Does the sovereign individual have the right to resist arrest? Does the fact that he is using roadways which were paid for by the public mean that he must submit to the officer, being that he is taking advantage of government-provided services without contributing to their funding? Should he be obligated to pay road tolls?

   Through the Takings Clause and eminent domain, the government has authority to purchase private property for use and collective ownership by the public. But what are "public" roads anyway; is "public" use only intended for citizens? Why has the notion of "the commons" been abstracted from the notion of the "public"? How can we ensure that citizens and non-citizens alike have free access to the same roads?

   Is the solution to privatize the roads, i.e., by having the government sell off the roads to those who would bid to purchase them? Would the profit incentive which results from such private ownership cause quality to decrease (i.e., poor maintenance of roads)? Would the quality of the roads decrease any more than it has under government management, being that there is an incentive to profit because citizens do not want their tax money tied to failing enterprises which lose money?

   Rather than to privatize the roads (i.e., have the government sell the roads to companies or other private entities which have exclusive, monopolistic right to supervise who uses them), is the solution instead to allow free competition (free competition being antithetical to monopoly, rather than its inevitable result, as so many are apt to claim)?

   How may such free competition arise, while ensuring that citizens and non-citizens alike have free access to the same roads? Should the government only sell the roads to enterprises which agree to allow universal access to them, and also to fairly compete with other road-building, road-maintenance, and road-supervision agencies?

   Do the users of roads have enough vital interest in the relative safety and fiscal responsibility of such agencies as compared to one another to ensure that (through contribution) the agency which has proven itself most capable of being both safe and fiscally responsible is also the agency which builds, maintains, and supervises more sections of American roadways than its competitors?

For more entries on Fifth Amendment property takings, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/private-beachfront-property-takings.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/slavery-civil-war-and-fifth-amendment.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/municipal-services-fifth-amendment-and.html

For more entries on transportation, transit, travel, and the automobile industry, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/sovereignty-and-secrecy-freedoms-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/spencer-stuart-recruited-executives-for.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-transportation-security.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/identification-and-travel-documents.html

The Second Amendment

Written in December 2010

Originally published 12-30-2010

OK, so you believe the Second Amendment had that point about militias because only well-regulated militias and not ordinary citizens should be allowed to have guns.

Well, you're wrong. The British Army was a militia, and the American Revolution was mainly fought by loosely-organized private citizens brandishing their hunting weapons, and not by militias. The United States Army was not established until mid-1775.

You still probably don't think that matters. So what are you going to do? Pass laws that take away people's guns?

How are you going to make a distinction between a gun that can be used for hunting, versus a gun that can be used for protecting yourself and your family against home invasions and carjackings, versus a gun that can be used to shoot the president?

Are you going to just take people's guns away after making it illegal to possess them, or are you going to compensate people for their guns at fair market value as you're required to by the Fifth Amendment?

Are you going to take away everybody's guns, or just those belonging to law-abiding citizens? How are you going to keep illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals?

Criminals are going to find ways to get guns. There's no getting around that. "When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns." So why not let private, law-abiding citizens possess whatever weapons are more powerful than the weapons they have reasonable suspicion that potential home invaders may use?

What does it matter how often people get killed for just sitting in a restaurant or walking down the street? It does happen! What are you going to do if you walk down the street unarmed dressed in a business suit with only some small change on you, and someone comes up and points a gun in your face? I'll tell you what you're going to do: you're going to get shot, you're going to die. I asked someone the same question, and they said, “What do you want me to say, die?” I said, “Well, I hope you have a better answer.” They didn’t.

Democrats want gun control. You know who else wanted gun control? Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Saying everybody should get rid of their guns is like saying every country should get rid of its nuclear weapons: it's a great idea, but I wouldn't want myself or my country to disarm first.

Some of the potential victims of the Virginia Tech massacre came out of the tragedy wanting to strengthen gun control laws. Others came out of it wanting to loosen gun control laws. Virginia Tech didn't allow weapons on campus. The shooter knew nobody could fight back. Schools. Malls. Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts. Airplanes. People find ways to get into these places without being searched. In some of these places, it's easier than in others.

You can't just arm yourself with knowledge. It takes something with moving parts these days. Go to a gun shop. Wait out the crazy period. Get a permit. Join the NRA. Take lessons. Teach your family members about gun safety. Keep your guns hidden and locked up where nobody, not your dumb-ass kids, not the police, can find them. Find out what your state's gun control laws are like (Alaska, Arizona, and, for some odd reason, Vermont, are the most gun-libertarian). Lobby your state government and the federal government for change.

For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/iran-and-israel.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-heres-what-i-think-happened.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/middle-east-foreign-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/local-inhabitants-per-deployed-us.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/defense-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/07/seeds-of-world-war-iii-being-sown-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/response-to-andrew-klavans-video.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/sovereignty-and-secrecy-freedoms-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-zionism-and-state-of-israel.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/national-defense-authorization-act-for.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/geopolitics-images.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-syria-debate-in-congress.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-china-global-warming-and-population.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/military-industrial-socialism-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-response-to-question-about-patriot.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/criticism-of-glenn-becks-libya-coverage.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/summary-of-webster-tarpleys-libya.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/barack-obama-universal-sycophant.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/notes-on-duplicity-in-us-foreign-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/notes-on-conflict-in-syria.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-two-state-solution-in-israel-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/military-intervention.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/us-military-service-under-united.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/us-withdrawal-from-united-nations.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-occupation-and-declaration-of.html

For more entries on gun control, the Second Amendment, and arrest, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-aurora-batman-massacre.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/04/letter-to-tammy-baldwin-on-gun-control.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/fourth-amendment-image.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/jared-lee-loughner-and-gabrielle.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-campaign-for-liberty.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/altering-2nd-amendment-to-protect.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/gun-control.html

Slavery, the Civil War, and the Fifth Amendment

Originally written in October 2010,

Re-published 1-5-2014

At the beginning of the Civil War, the taking of slaves had been outlawed in the United States for about half a century. Ongoing possession of slaves, however, had not yet been outlawed.

In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant's Union military forces fought a seceding Confederate army formed by the several Southern states. States may secede either when a majority of the states consent, or unilaterally through revolution.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation executive orders of 1862-1863 freed slaves in the Southern states. This amounts to ineffectual action, since the law ostensibly affected territories which were not under the control of Lincoln's Union government. Many neglect to mention that slavery still existed in the North even after the proclamation.

The Civil War lasted four years and resulted in over 640,000 deaths, the majority of which were on the Union side.

This begs the question: Could the Civil War and the resulting deaths have been prevented, and if so, could they have been prevented through action which was completely legal?

Considering that slaves were still legally the private property of their owners as of the beginning of the war, the North could have reimbursed slave owners on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line for the market value of their slaves. In fact, if, before the war had broken out, the United States had resolved to end slavery only through legal means, they would have acknowledged that this meant they were constitutionally obligated to do just that, and would have preceded with this legal route to abolition.

The North didn't seek this legal route because it was envious of how much wealth the South stood to generate thanks to the capital it possessed in the form of slaves and plantations. The North also would have had to pay an additional 50% tariff on all goods coming from the South as a foreign country. The Union knew it had the military might necessary to accomplish Southern slavery abolition through force, and the apportioned taxes it levied stood to disproportionately under-favor the South due to the three-fifths clause.

During the Civil War, a slave was defined as three-fifths of a person, and thus not entitled as a full person to due process or just compensation for the taking of his liberty or property, i.e.; his status as an unpaid, coerced laborer was constitutionally justified.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “no person shall… be deprived of… property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Fifth Amendment certainly applies to this case because these slaves were "private property... taken for public use". First, the slaves were, indisputably, privately-owned property possessed by their white plantation-owner masters. Second, slaves were taken for public use, as evidenced by the many cases in which black children have been taken from their families by social services and made into practically orphaned wards of the state, as well as the obvious example of all the coerced prison labor performed by black inmates (whom are disproportionately jailed) throughout the history of this country.

Whatever your view of secessionism and states' rights, it seems that both the Union and the Confederacy had in mind the same goal: to own blacks as property, be it publicly or privately, in order to generate wealth for those who possess them.

For more entries on civil rights, slavery, segregation, and discrimination, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/06/title-ii-of-civil-rights-act-of-1964.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/barry-goldwater-and-conservative.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/11/response-to-exposing-racist-history-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-role-of-aswpl-and-christian.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-cherokee-freedmen-controversy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/zionism-images.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-civil-rights-and-jim-crow-laws.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/bundy-cows-better-off-as-slaves.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/sen-cliven-bundy-harry-reid-owes-feds.html

For more entries on Fifth Amendment property takings, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/private-beachfront-property-takings.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/questions-about-roads-eminent-domain.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/municipal-services-fifth-amendment-and.html

Private Beachfront Property Takings

Florida beachfront property

It is possible for the U.S. Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over Florida’s private beachfront takings case because the issue under debate in this case is the consistency of state law with the provisions of the U.S. Federal Constitution, and also because the plaintiff contested the decision of a state supreme court, which means that the dispute may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. This case should be decided in favor of the plaintiff; the Florida property owners.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that private property “shall [not]… be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Florida property has rightfully and legitimately been deemed necessary for the state to condemn, but as long as the decision of the state’s supreme court is permitted to stand by the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs will not have been justly compensated for the decline in the value of their homes that has resulted from their loss of control over the access to and use of that beachfront property.

In the 6-to-3 decision of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, in the opinion of the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that, according to the majority’s interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, compensation is required in the event that the regulation “compel[s] the owner to suffer a physical ‘invasion’ of his property”. To convert the plaintiffs’ property into a public beach which could also be used by vendors to sell food amounts to a physical invasion because it would make it possible and likely that areas near the plaintiffs’ homes could frequently become mobbed with crowds of people, which would cause the disturbance of the local property owners.

Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In the 1897 decision of Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote the opinion of the 7-to-1 majority: “…since the adoption of the 14^th Amendment compensation for private property taken for public use constitutes an essential element in ‘due process of law,’ and that without such compensation the appropriation of private property to public uses, no matter under what form of procedure it is taken, would violate the provisions of the Federal Constitution.”

Justice Scalia also wrote in the Lucas decision that “land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests'”. Issues that will be at contention in this case include whether condemnation for the purposes of mitigating potential damage to property along the coastline constitutes a substantial advancement of legitimate state interest, and also whether the benefits of the protection against damage to property by hurricanes which has been conferred upon the owners by the state constitutes by its own merit a “just compensation” for the owners’ decline of property value resulting from loss of control over access to the newly-appropriated land.

Written in Summer 2008

Originally Published on October 24^th, 2010

For more entries on Fifth Amendment property takings, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/slavery-civil-war-and-fifth-amendment.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/questions-about-roads-eminent-domain.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/municipal-services-fifth-amendment-and.html