Hogan Zeroes |
A mesolibertarian voice. What is a mesolibertarian? Not a paleo or a neo. The traditional principled kind. notanempire@aol.nospamcom (you know what to do with the "no spam") |
Monday, July 04, 2005
Constitutionalism by the Kelo
Jim Henley comments on my offer you can refuse, in a full post further below, of $50 if one can convince me that the Fifth Amendment takings clause textually restricts public takings to "public use". Here's Jim: "Near as I can tell, Matthew is not making the too-clever-by-half argument that the literal meaning of the Constitution requires compensation for “public use” takings but permits “private use” takings without compensation." Although that had not been my original intent, if you'll pardon the expression, or my main one, a later discovery indicates it indeed may be the case. See my broader comment below. Back to Jim: (Refuting this is simple enough. Ask yourself, “Why would the framers have wanted to restrict public use takings more than private use ones?” Answer: the very thought is absurd. Therefore it cannot mean that.) He’s saying instead that the clause makes no effort to define a restrictive meaning of “public use,” and therefore Kelo’s circular interpretation - public use is any purpose for which a government siezes property - is constitutionally correct. Yes, I do mean that, sadly. (Though not exactly: takings of property when done by government are not always, or typically, for public use or even a general discretionary purpose. More later on this. The "takings for public use" phrase probably simply means "exercise of eminent domain".) What the clause does nobly is attempt to hobble those eminent domain exercises quantitatively, i.e. by requiring payouts of compensation, and not qualitatively, i.e. by specifying what is or is not the proper extent of eminent domain. That is left blank, or left for other clauses. But the seemingly "absurd" part Jim mentioned turns out to be true as well, as I feared before looking at it in detail. (BTW, a taking for "private purposes" might include freeing slaves, in that case the government doesnt "use" them, but an expansive reading would have permitted that though the freeing would be a taking NOT for public "use" but a private benefit flowing from an asbtractly broad (beyond even tax revenue increase or economic development) "public purpose" (liberation). Madison did indeed have that issue very much in mind, see article cited below, when he explained the takings clause, and he felt that the *compensation* part would inhibit it, he did not specify the "public use" part, even though freeing the slaves is the direct opposite of a literal narrow public "use" taking.) Let me add to this via a reply to Jim's site that bounced back due to some technical reason from his site (further below). I probably should emphasize here that there are and were "takings" by government that are also normally uncompensated, which is why one should assume that "takings for public use" is simply descriptive of the type of taking and not a limitation to it: punishments for crimes, collections of debts. Additionally in colonial times as well, and NOT done by the crown but by fellow colonial legislators, there were takings for private use -- undeveloped property could be taken by law and given to developers. More on that further down. Since I want, like most libertarians, an expansive protection of property from the Fifth Amendment clause, and it does not use restrictive language on "public use", I WANT it to read that "public use" is an expansive concept, so that it will embrace ANY government taking of property under, or purportedly under, eminent domain. So that a government would at least have to pay for doing the damage, a big incentive for hesitancy. One could even envision an interpretation that would include the original owners of taken land receiving all increased tax revenue from a seizure. (Just 'cause it's libertarian, doesn't mean it's constitutional and vice-versa.) My more detailed reply to Jim (with some minor corrections):
Comments:
Everyone needs a great place to live at some point in time and Maryland is fantastic. If you are looking for estate in maryland real sale make sure have all the resources at your fingertips.
Post a Comment
The website http://www.homesinfoguy.com has a great informational directory on estate in maryland real sale so you can find exactly what you need.
|