Amendments: Property Rights

There's a lot of confusion about constitutional rights. A lot of people will tell you they're God-given and immutable. I don't agree with that. (I'd argue that the entire concept of defending your own rights is, to a great degree, antithetical to Christianity. But that's not today's post.) Arguments about rights descended from on high are for philosophy and religion; while those topics are fascinating and useful, they're not what you use to build a functional government.

What we're talking about are rights that people need to have for society to function. The Constitution is not holy writ, to any degree. It works amazingly well because it's a well-crafted work of man. But that's also why it's flawed, and why it can be improved.

Even though it's flawed (as all works of man must be), the Constitution is brilliant, so let's start from what we've got. Most or all of the rights listed in the Constitution are there in response to specific issues the founders saw in their time. They saw problems, and fixed them! But there are problems they couldn't anticipate. So let's look at what they gave us, see what problems we have today, and go from there.

I'd argue that the rights listed in the Constitution are great in concept, but sometimes they're stated in too narrow a fashion. Our government often completely bypasses the spirit of the law, focusing entirely on the letter of it. (And sometimes on a very bizarre interpretation of that!) If we clarify the rights in the Constitution, the government will no longer has such end-runs available.

Let's start with property rights. There's a concept called civil forfeiture. The concept is that if property is used in a crime, the government can take it from its rightful owner, even if the owner wasn't involved in the crime. A person can be punished for crimes they did not commit. This is clearly an un-American practice and needs to end, immediately. Read more at fear.org.

1) Property shall only be taken from its owner without consent if that owner is convicted of a crime, or if just compensation is given. No other takings are permitted.

And while we're on the topic of just compensation, how about eminent domain? The constitution allows the government to take your property for public use, but only if you are justly compensated for it. However, what qualifies as "just compensation" is not stated clearly, and so we end up with injustice. The typical standard is "market value", but what's actually offered by the condemning agency is often far less than that. On the occasion a citizen goes to court to demand a higher price, they often get one.

The fundamental problem is that the condemning agency benefits from low-balling the estimated value of the property. The agency determining the value of the property can't be the same as the one paying for it. Instead, all eminent domain cases should have their prices set by a court, eliminating conflict of interest. This may clog the courts, but if the people aren't getting justice for lack of courts, you need more courts.

2) In cases where private property is taken for public use, what qualifies as just compensation for that property shall be determined by a judge.

Some people take issue with the use of eminent domain for uses that are not public. At this point, I'm not addressing that. From the perspective of the person losing their property, it's all the same, and for this immediate post I'm focusing on that person's rights. I may discuss that at a later time.