Eminent Domain

Approaching this topic is difficult because of the various views of how the Constitution should be interpreted; some people view the Constitution as a living document that should reflect the attitude and values of the times. The alternative view is that the spirit and word of the Constitution should be held as a constant; this is the view that will be applied here. This position would negate any amendments to the Constitution that conform to the living document view. It is suggesting that some U.S. Supreme Court rulings do not conform to the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The reason this position was chosen over the view of a living Constitution that reflects the attitudes and values of the society at any given time; is because living document view creates contradictions within the Constitution over time due to the change in values and attitudes. Our Founders constructed the Constitution the way they did, to prevent the power accumulation cycle from repeating itself. They were trying to protect us from developing a powerful centralized government that would eventually lessen the individual’s rights; this core principal is what makes our Constitution so unique.

Eminent Domain is defined as: “the right of the state to take private property for public use.” The Constitution addresses this point in the Fifth Amendment with the following statement: “; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The aspects that need to be evaluated here are related to the “public use” and “just compensation.” One may find it difficult to suggest that taking property from one private party and turning it over to another private party can be viewed as “public use.” The public does not own the land and they are not deriving a profit from the private businesses that are operating in the area taken. Even if this were to be extended to the building of a stadium that was owned and operated by a city or county government, one still finds reasons to reject this position. The government is taking property away from an individual for a wanted function by a portion of the community; it is not for a need that property was taken, but for a want. Finally, this last example goes against another basic principle of our Constitution, that of keeping government small and not taking money from citizens unnecessarily. The taking of property has become an economic consideration that is related more to tax revenue for the political structure’ then it is to “public use” aspect.

The second aspect, “just compensation”, is an open door for abuse; the agency that is doing the taking is the one that is making the determination as to the value of the property. Talk about a setup, can you picture an individual going up to a property owner and saying “you have to sell me your property and this is what I think is a fair price.” Some people have a greater attachment to their property, that goes far beyond the value on the tax roll. How does one account for the value of property that has been in a family’s hands for generations? Some of us have had the opportunity to see how government operates when it come to taking land during this period of inflated tax values on property and found that the offer was not derived from the property tax rolls, because the offer reflected a lower price. There are cases where the offer to purchase is greater than the value stated on the tax roll, but the seller has a good relationship with the government. Because of the opportunity for abuse in this area it is important to apply a very restrictive view to the buying or taking of property.

There is an outcry by many of our citizens about how the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment is being used, and it must be remembered that this is all the result of rulings that have been made by the U.S. Supreme Court; this is one of the reasons that it has become so important to place judges on the Court that favor a particular view of the Constitution. The voting population does not make the selection directly, that is the job of the President, with the consent of the Senate. If the electorate really wants to make a change in our direction then it needs to make sure that the person they are voting for believes in the basic values of the original Constitution. Big government is not the answer, it is the problem. We need to make an effort to put individuals in office that have some perspective as to how to resolve our problems, and that would include incorporating input from the private sector. Voting is important, but voting intelligently is essential if we are to reinstate the values that were present at the founding of our nation.

Charlie Allo