New Amendment Protecting Property Rights
If you are not outraged by the direction that the right of individuals to own property is taking in this country, then you are either a liberal or stunningly uninformed.
A PoliSci professor once told me that the original wording for the famous “unalienable rights” phrase was “life, liberty and property”, but Rousseau’s influence resulted in the change to “pursuit of happiness”. So once again we were screwed by the French.
A freeper proposed this constitutional amendment for discussion:
RIGHT TO REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
- Whereas the power to tax is the power to destroy; Tax on all property, real and personal, except as income or on sale or transfer, above one-tenth of one percent per annum shall be prohibited.
- The taking of property by eminent domain shall only be by just compensation for the purpose of the erection of public infrastructure.
- Public property that is sold or otherwise converted to private use within 20 years shall first be offered to its original owner(s) or their heirs in substantially its original condition at its original price of acquisition.
- Property that is seized for non-payment of taxes must be speedily sold at auction. Any amount above the tax owed and costs must be returned to the owner.
- This article shall have no time limit on its ratification.
A damn fine idea. Personally, I would much rather have personal property protected by the constitution than the rights of same-sex couples limited by that document.
While the proposed amendment is good what use is it when you have five senile Leftwingnuts who use the existing Constitution for toilet paper? Its time to hang some judges.
An amendment to protect private property..
I say go for it.
Sir, I don’t consider myself stunningly uninformed. I will admit that it is harder to keep up with U.S. issues as an expatriate in the Asia-Pacific area; however, I think you exaggerate when you call me “stunningly uninformed” because I’m not familiar with “the direction that the right of individuals to own property is taking” back home.
Are you stunningly uninformed of the global distribution of your readership? If not, then I’d suggest you’ve never tried keeping abreast of U.S. issues while living overseas. It’s not easy; but I am trying.
Yours truly,
Rick Smothermon
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Nice. But the first part “Tax on all property, real and personal, except as income or on sale or transfer, above one-tenth of one percent per annum shall be prohibited.” – what is that supposed to limit? Income, sales and transfer (eg inheritance) are just about all our taxes, I guess property taxes are above and beyond that, on homes?
Well, I would be in favor the amendment, though it should not be required and I would rather it stricter in limiting taxes.
That’s not bad, but it should also include a statement to the effect:
The purpose of this ammendment is to protect private property and to grant to government a very limited power of eminent domain. If there is ever confusion about the meaning or intent of this amendment, benefit of the doubt shall be given to the protection of to private property.
We might as well say it openly so that future generations will be sure of its meaning.
Phil, given the conflicting decisions handed down yesterday concerning the 10 Commandments on public property I’d say you are absolutely correct. Sometimes it seems that these guys make it up as they go along.
Rick, thank you for reminding me what it is like to live overseas (it’s been a while) and for chastising me for not keeping my readership in mind. I do tend to forget that I’m not writing this just for my family anymore.
Please stop by again and always feel free to post a comment.