Commentary

The Taking of Property

In Connecticut, a local municipality decided that it would be worthwhile to take the property of people who live in their homes - some from families who lived there for generations - and transfer it to commercial owners for development in order to bring in greater tax revenue.

This law was again challenged on constitutional grounds, specifically the "takings clause" of the constitution which provides that property can only be taken from an individual for just compensation and public use. Here the land was not being taken for public use, such as a highway or public hospital, but rather strictly as a means of generating greater tax revenue by taking the property from one private owner and giving it to another.

Again, the most liberal members of the court had no problem siding with the government against the individual, with the majority this year holding that such forcible taking of property was not in violation of the constitution. Justice Thomas wrote an impassioned dissent on behalf of the individual owners that "no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced, and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes."

Finally the much lauded McCain-Feingold bill was passed two years ago for the express interest of getting money and corruption out of politics by reforming the campaign finance system.

The law, among its many confusing provisions, prohibits a non-profit corporation or union in a television or radio ad for mentioning the name of a candidate within 60 days of a federal election.

In other words, publicly criticizing an incumbent could get you jail time.

The U.S. Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" and this law was thus challenged on those grounds.

The most liberal members of the court again found the law to be acceptable, and not an assault on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Justice Thomas again was in the minority and joined in the dissent with Justice Scalia who wrote that "This is a sad day for the freedom of speech," in that the majority of members of the court "would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect, the right to criticize the government."

Where was the liberal majority in all of these cases?

On the side of big government and against the individual.

September 29, 2005