The War on Individualism 


Part I: Private Property & Apathy 

On Thursday morning, a 5-4 divided US Supreme Court made its ruling on the issue of eminent domain public: government can use the concept of eminent domain to take away the private property of an individual as long as...no, screw that; the government can do it whenever it damn-well pleases with now-"private" property! Eminent domain need no longer be summoned to deal with run-down neighborhoods in need of repair, or to make way for an essential stretch of road or local school; by proxy of our tradition of law based on precedent, developers, businesses and their ilk now have–to use a recently favored phrase of mine–carte blanche to take whatever property they like, no matter whether or not the current owner has decided to sell it.

En masse and all at once, all of our private property has been struck down to the second tier and is subject to local legislatures and people with money as they decide if any of our properties would be better off being owned or developed by someone else. It's a desecration to our Constitution (where Amendment V makes it clear that private property cannot "be taken for public use without just compensation," mentioning nothing about public "use" by proxy of enhanced and enlarged tax revenues via explicit private use) and one more victorious shot into the aging ideal of individualism and personal liberty. Furthermore, if one looks at the rest of our Constitution he will find that this ruling is completely and utterly inconsistent with the type of life that our Forefathers envisioned for us, a life allowing the free pursuit of life, liberty and property.

I am too damned angry to write anything further about this ridiculous ruling, for I hope to have an awesome weekend. But I will say that all is not lost: state legislatures can still pass laws restricting the use of eminent domain locally; furthermore, if ever a Constitutional Amendment might be appropriate, I could be convinced that this would be one of those cases. As you know by now, I am extremely wary on the subject of amending our Constitution but, in all honesty, the precedent guarding private property rights has already been set; apparently it is not explicit enough for those five "Justices" on the Supreme Court who issued the majority opinion this week. The right to own private property is the right of every American–Thomas Paine would consider it a "natural right" of man and would contend that it is government's responsibility not to allow a man (or woman) to do a certain thing, but it is its place to guard his rights and to protect them against those who would threaten them. Our government does not give us the right to free speech in the Constitution; rather, it protects that right...or at least it tries to convince the vessels of judgement and enforcement to do so.

I should have no greater leeway to take away Bill Gates's home as he would have to take mine (although I know that he's not in the business of taking away people's homes). This is the most basic concept at the root of the tree of individual liberty...and it just got flushed down the toilet by a bunch of Black-Robed Kings who decided to side with indirect enhancement of government coffers rather than the right of a man to own a plot of land and to do with it what he likes.

Justice O'Connor (with whom Chief Justice Renquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed) wrote this in the dissenting opinion:

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote: An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority . . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.

--------------------------

Oh, and about the proposed anti-flag-burning amendment that gets resurrected every few years, Democratic Representative John Conyers said it best: Few Americans favor burning the flag. I personally deplore desecration of the flag in any form, but am strongly opposed to this resolution. This resolution goes against those ideals the flag represents and elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself.

This is a crucial distinction to make.

You know, the Fourth of July used to be my favorite holiday: I enjoyed seeing the "patriotism" that took the form of flags hung outside of houses, festive parades and bright fireworks. But now, after a year of becoming even more jaded on just how much freedom and liberty We The People actually do have in this country, the Fourth of July is something that I am coming to dread. I do not know how much I will be able to bear the sight of Americans who wave their flags on the street on this day when most of them are so oblivious to the challenges to individual rights and liberties and the victories against them, especially lately and from all points along the political spectrum. When we lose interest in the ideals that have made us so unique and successful, when we lose the ambition to improve upon the Great Experiment in Government that is our democratic republic, and when we act like drones at the ballot box (those of us who vote) and place any real accountability with those who are our envoys in government, then I see a rotten foundation to a great building, a foundation that no one quite has the guts to fix and set right.

This power-grab by the powers-that-be and by "our" government must stop, and the key to doing this may be found in capitalizing upon one of the unfortunate realities of our time: extreme partisanship. I advocate a return to a type of "cohabitation" in government (distinct from the French type, but similar), where the Congress and the Presidency are controlled by competing parties. Only then will we get some semblance of moderation that we so desperately need and, hopefully, a closer look will be given to our oh-so-important Founding Documents.

Americans need to be galvanized out of indifference and into a vigilant activism. I need to become more active as well. I want to see protests on the Fourth of July against the concept of rights for some people, but not for others; protests for a return to the rule of law; protests against ideologues who restrict an American's right to protest how he wants; and protests against the asinine ruling that is a slap in the face to one of the most basic natural rights of man.

I intend to write more about the War on Individualism in the near-term.

 

Posted: Fri - June 24, 2005 at 05:29 PM          

©