Works for me. I am surprised that more legislators don't grab on to this issue, as it seems a natural winner, the kind of populist legislation that can be played to the left or right.

One down, 48 to go.

Vermont will, of course, never even consider such legislation.

No, this does NOT solve the problem. If property rights are "given" by the gov't, as done here, they can be taken away. Private property rights are supposed to be inalienable.

Michigan already has such safeguards inplace.

Ideal for the GOP would be for the VA legislature to come up with such a bill but then have governor Warner, a potential Dem presidential/vice-presidential candidate in '08, veto the bill.

b:

Not according to the Declaration or Constitution.

The Court:

"We're not going to follow the Constitution, or make anyone else abide by it...but you can if you want."

'Public use' is Constitutionally permissable and necessary. 'Public purpose' is thievery under color of authority.

The Founders were reasonably competent drafters and pretty foresighted fellows--when they expressly provided for the government to do something it's awfully hard to work onself into a dither about it happening.

"The Founders were reasonably competent [draftsmen] and pretty foresighted fellows"

True, and they never intended the 5th Amendment to apply to the States, and so it was held by Marshall in Baron v. Baltimore.

Did the 14th Amendment change that. No, it does not say anything about the issue.

Only in the 20th century was an intention to lay out all of the 5th Amendment in the 14th discovered.

"Private property rights are supposed to be inalienable."

If property rights were inalienable, you would not be able to sell something. Fortunately, that is not what the Declaration of Independence (which uses the word "unalienable," BTW) means. Read Locke.

In order to come from the state of nature into civil society and enjoy its benefits (and, if you do not think they are subsantial, study up on the Congo and similar spots in Africa, or al-Anbar province in Iraq) men must accept limits on their rights.

In the state of nature you have an unlimited right to property, but you have to defend it from the maurauding hordes yourself. In civil society, your right to hold any particular piece of property is subject to limits such as the power of eminent domaine, but the Police and the US Army will defend your rights. Fair trade.

Dave W.: "Michigan already has such safeguards inplace."

Well sort of. The Michigan Supreme court allowed detroit to expropriate an area called Poletown, so that GM could build a plant there about 30 years ago. There was a big stink about that one too.

About 2 years ago the Michigan Supreme court reversed itself on the Poletown ruling and adopted a much more stringent public use test.

Robert Schwartz

"if property rights are inalienable, you would not be able to sell something"

Au contraire, that which is unalienable is the right to "own" property. Ownership is a bundle of specific "rights", one of which is the right to transfer. Hence no contradiction at all. What would be transfered in a sale is the ownership of a specific property and NOT the right to own ANY property.

There is no inalienable right to own any property, as the texts make abundantly clear. There is a right to just compensation when your property is alienated.

What I said is that IF there is an inalienable right to own property, that would not prohibit the transfer of ownership to another person, which was what was indicated by Robert Schwartz's original statement, when he said "if property rights are inalienable, you would not be able sell something"

There is no inalienable right to own any property, as the texts make abundantly clear. There is a right to just compensation when your property is ali

Obviously you are not reading my statements to the effect that a "politically granted" inalienable property right does not mean that ownership can not be transferred to another.

Regarding your statement that "there is no inalienable right to own any property" I agree if for no other reason than the fact that the constitution on this issue does clearly states that the federal government can take property if they give just compensation. You wisely perceived the issue in the above case and gave the right answer. (although it has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence)

But just to test your statement that there is NO inalienable right to own property in the constitution, which can't be taken away, would you explain the following to me. Arms (guns) are property. The 2nd Admendment says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Are you saying 1) that despite the clear statement to the contrary, the federal government can take that property (guns) if they pay just compensation, or 2) are you saying you are wrong.

h:

The gun right is contingent on the well-ordered militia phrase. But obviously general property can be taken or taxes would be unconstiutional.

No, the militia phrase is contingent on an armed & loyal citizenry.

Eminent domain (takings) is not the issue. That is accepted. Nor is just compensation the issue--also accepted.

The issue is "public use" vs. the amorphous new "public purpose" standard. Shall we bulldoze churches to open strip clubs if they generate more tax revenue? Is 'good karma' a 'public purpose' too?

Not to mention this puts a target on low property tax areas such as, say, New Hampshire.

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own."--James Madison

Religion is protected. Mere property isn't.

"Mere"?

"He has merely erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their mere substance."

"For merely cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world."

"For imposing mere Taxes on us without our Consent."

"He has merely plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns..."

"We the People of the United States, merely to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

3rd Amd: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the mere Owner"

4th Amd: "The right of the people to be secure in their...mere houses...against unreasonable...seizures shall not be violated"

5th Amd: "nor be deprived of...mere property, without due process of law;

14th Amd: "nor shall any State deprive any person of...mere property, without due process of law"

Mere Christianity: "It is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects--military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect
the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire,
a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room
or digging in his own garden--that is what the State is there for. And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments,
all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police,
economics, etc., are simply a waste of time."

The Mere 10th Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house."

Noel:

Notice that the Constitution expressly permits the government not just to covet but to take?

oj,

Yes. Unto itself for Public Use. But not as a thieving pimp selling expropriated booty to a private john.

However, since a Hampshireman has filed a claim on David "Pimp Daddy" Souter's home, wishing to turn it into the 'Lost Liberty Inn', I now recant.

If we needed his land for a highway we'd take it.

If it was for a road, we wouldn't be discussing this. This is 'The Road to Serfdom'...without a road.

But I'm on your side now; how 'bout a Guerrilla Dinner Theater and Marina at the new inn?

Sure, a cultural venue is worthwhile. Roads are hate crimes.

Which is why they wear stripes.

btw, what is a 'love crime', anyway? Besides the Clinton Administeration, I mean.

A mugger doesn't hate you, just wants your money. A road builder hates you.