Let’s discuss emin
ent domain, a topic on which everyone has an unyielding stand on one way or the other. To understand the issue, we need to dwell on a bit of history.
We all like to think our ancestors came to the new world for religious freedom, some did. The main reason most Europeans came to North America was to own property. In Europe property was owned by the king, emperor or potentate and you could not own land, no matter how rich you were. Landed gentry were the friends and allies of the sovereign and titles came with land. The people living on the land and farming the land were also the property of the landed gentry.
The concept of coming to the United States and being able to homestead 120 to 160 acres was utopia to middle class Europeans; the poor could not afford the passage to America and the aristocrats had no reason to leave. A middle class European could sell everything he owned and come to America with a rifle, axe, and some cooking and farming implements, homestead and in a few years, own his personal heaven on earth.
A first draft of the Constitution read “life liberty and property,” not “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Property ownership was considered a human right for all Americans. Our founding fathers also insured in writing that private property could only be taken after fair reimbursement by the government. The English could take property in the name of the king any time they wished without paying compensation. Indeed, the sancti
ty of private property was one of the many reasons for the War of Independence.
For the first two centuries of our government’s existence, eminent domain, or the government taking private property after proper reimbursement, was only used in cases of public safety and national defense. The interstate highway system was named the National Defense Highway System when it was being built; eminent domain was used to take property necessary to build a road network to allow military forces to move by land from coast to coast.
The Mississippi river flood control and Tennessee valley flood control projects were national safety issues. Every year hundreds of Americans were killed during the flood season. Private property was taken by eminent domain to build levees and dams. During World War II property was seized to build the military and industrial facilities needed to win the war.
The American understanding of the concept of eminent domain was reshaped on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled in Susette Kelo, et al v. City of New London Connecticut, et al. The court ruled government has the right to take property for the “economic good” of the community.
The controlling factors were no longer national defense or public safety; they are now “the economic good of all communities,” as seen by the government entity, even the lowest level of government. After proper reimbursement, any township or village official can now take private property if it is deemed for the economic good of the community.
As you might think, the small government conservatives became unhinged and the big government liberals were delighted. The concept of private ownership of property is a fundamental American value that makes it difficult for government to control the people. The concept of limited government is also an American value that angers the left. The Supreme Court has granted power over private ownership of property to the government — that is darn near medieval.
Eminent domain is an issue in the Republican primary, as Donald Trump has defended its use. Mr. Trump (who at this point has my vote) needs to explain to the voters where he stands on this issue and more importantly if he will and what he will do to ensure private property rights of individual Americans.
Most conservative Americans have few problems with taking private property for public safety and national defense, especially at the national levels. The problem comes when a local community wants to see a car wash or a golf course built and takes property involuntarily that was cleared and homesteaded by the current owner’s ancestors six generations ago.
Mr. Trump, who stated that he supports eminent domain, and all Republication candidates need to spell out a clear stand on this issue. The Democratic candidates need to make their stands clear as well, although a massive over-reaching government is an acknowledged goal of the American liberal party. The current system of exercising eminent domain makes every official, even at the lowest level, a monarch who gets to rule on who owns property, not unlike the oppressive English king from whom our nation fought so desperately to be liberated.
Once again, and as usual, ‘Army Bob’ goes beyond reason by offering his misrepresentation of liberal ideologies. It might surprise him then to discover that I, as someone whom he’d delightfully scorn as a left-wing liberal, agree with him on this topic. I too found the Supreme Court’s decision (an unarguably conservative court by the way) in the Kelo vs New London case disturbing. There are far too many cases of ’eminent domain’ being used to decimate individual properties as well as entire neighborhoods simply to enrich wealthy interests rather than serving the public welfare. A prime example is construction of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, MO. The 50th anniversary of it’s completion was celebrated last year, but a 2013 book authored by Tracy Campbell details the destruction of St. Louis’ waterfront executed under the guise of ‘urban renewal’ and ’eminent domain’.
We know that the Supreme Court can and does occasionally get something wrong. Just look at the Citizens United vs. FEC decision, or the most egregious decision in our lifetime, Bush vs. Gore. The Kelo decision too can be added to the list.
Conservatives as well as Liberals should be troubled by Donald Trump’s position on Eminent Domain, but more troubling is that anyone might be delusional enough to think that Donald Trump could be a viable leader of America.