Condemning Liberty

By Alexander Schwab

It’s ironic that, in the world’s freest nation, it takes only five individuals out of a population of 280 million to empower tyranny, savage liberty and assault the legal foundations of our country.

By a one-vote margin, the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London has eliminated the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement, which restricts government exercise of the power of eminent domain. Well, in all fairness, not eliminated so much as redefined out of existence, or, as Justice Stevens so eloquently babbles, “our jurisprudence has recognized that the needs of society have … evolved over time in response to changed circumstances.” Translation: the words of the Constitution are simply suggestions to be considered, not rules to be followed, when the High Court’s whim dictates our national law. Apparently, the Founding Fathers envisioned an unchecked tyranny of nine to provide balance to our democracy.

In the case, a 5-4 majority decreed that the town of New London, Connecticut, could legally banish citizens from their unblighted homes, demolish their houses, and turn the land over to private firms — all in the name of “economic development.” As the Court’s opinion so politely informs us, the phrase “public use” really means “public purpose” (the authors of the Bill of Rights seem to have lacked such a term in their vocabulary, so Justice Stevens decided to lend them a hand). Which leaves us with the question: What better public purpose could one imagine than seizing the property of low-income homeowners so that wealthy developers and their legislative enablers can further fatten their wallets?

New London rationalizes that the land’s potential will be better realized once condominiums, offices and a health club have been erected. The august New York Times editorial page echoes this sentiment, asserting that “many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.” A splendid version of the old utilitarian credo, which espouses the “greatest good for the greatest number.” But that is not the purpose of the Bill of Rights. No one doubts that someone will benefit from the city transferring the property, but that is not — nor should it be — the standard for a government “taking.” Supreme Court justices are supposed to be champions of individual rights, not calculating policymakers.

This decision touches every citizen in a unique way regardless of individual commitment to ideals, altruism or raw self-interest. Despite ideological differences on other issues, citizens of all political orientations ought to recognize the injustice the Kelo opinion has perpetrated against the American people.

For conservatives, this decision dashes the hopes of those yearning for strict constructionism to become the prevailing legal philosophy of the Supreme Court. The oftentimes arbitrary and ungrounded jurisprudence infecting the judiciary has culminated in Kelo.

For liberals, this decision reeks of classism by bolstering the rich at the expense of the poor. The greater an area’s poverty, the more likely it is that government will seek redevelopment to increase revenues. And in battling unreasonable eminent domain seizures, the wealthy and connected will always command more influence than traditionally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, seniors and minorities.

For libertarians, this decision sounds the death knell for economic liberty. A limit restricting government to property seizures only when another party can better utilize the land is no limit at all. Justice O’Connor’s dissent laments, “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.” The Supreme Court, the institution created for the very purpose of retarding state encroachment, has instead legitimized it.

For autocrats – well, they seem to have made out pretty well.

The Supreme Court majority would like to believe that Americans have been deluded — that property rights were a dream; economic liberty, an illusion; the rule of law, a figment of the imagination. These foundations of society are no delusion, but without resistance, they may become a memory. When rights become expendable for the sake of expediency, they cease to exist altogether. Perhaps next on the chopping block is the First Amendment — imagine an America in which political free speech could be limited simply because citizens used money to broaden their audience. Wait a second …

Take good care of your home. It now belongs to the state.

Alexander Schwab is a research assistant for the Center for Individual Freedom.

Click here to join CFIF's effort to restore private property rights.