Restoring the American Dream (Part III)

Takings are the most intrusive form of government interference and regulation over the American dream. The Constitution says government can use eminent domain only if the takings are for public use and with just compensation. But what gives government the right to take property from the poor and give it to wealthy land developers (Berman v. Parker, 1954)? In fact, the government can take property from anyone if the outcome is one of public benefit and not one of public use. Hence, the Court decision in Kelo v. New London (2005) allows the government to take property from a person if the outcome is more jobs and or higher tax revenue for the community. Hence, nobody’s property is safe from eminent domain. Isn’t it odd that the Court protects privacy within the home, but it has done nothing to secure the property rights of the home.

If this is not bad enough, the Court can take property from people using regulatory measures without just compensation. This was decided in Penn Central v. New York (1978) and Sierra-Tahoe v. Tahoe Reginal Planning Association (2002) line of cases. In Penn Central the Court held that a New York law placing a historic landmark designation on Penn Central was legal. The Court held New York can not only prevent any building modifications to Penn Central but it required no just compensation. In Sierra-Tahoe the Court held regulations which denied building permits for 20 years was legal without just compensation. In other words, temporary takings without just compensation are legal. But it is not just homes and buildings that are at stake when it comes to government takings. The Court also allows the government to confiscate any type property involved in a crime without just compensation such as a car, boat, or plane. This law may be acceptable if the owners of the property perpetrated the crime. For instance, a boat used to transport large amounts of heroin may be impounded without just compensation. But confiscation of property is allowed even if the owner of the property is merely an innocent victim of the crime (Bennis v. Michigan). Tina Bennis lost her car without any compensation because it was used by her husband and a prostitute for illegal sexual activity. We know Tina Bennis was not complicit in allowing her husband to have sex with prostitutes. Yet, these types of civil forfeiture cases are ever-increasing. Civil forfeiture is sometimes referred to as “guilty property” cases.

The most egregious violation of the takings clause is when the government uses taxes to support welfare programs. In Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company (1895) the Court held that a federal income tax was unconstitutional. However, this decision was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment. But nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment says that federal tax revenue can be used for anything other than enumerated constitutional powers. This did not stop the Court from upholding the first welfare program (Social Security) in Helvering v. Davis (1937). In this case, the Court held that social security was legal based on the General Welfare Clause. Social Security is a government Ponzi Scheme where money is confiscated from struggling young people and then given to wealthier older persons.

Helvering opened the door for the legality of any welfare program using the General Welfare Clause. But, once again, the General Welfare Clause is not an unlimited grant of power for the federal government. If the government could use the General Welfare Clause to pass anything outside of its Constitutional enumerated powers, then why did the framers bother enumerating any powers in the Constitution? After all, any enumerated power would simply be a truism with no official purpose. So, the question that begs to be answered is: why can the government take money via taxes (property) from person A and give it to person B? In Calder v. Bull (1798) Chief Justice Samuel Chase wrote that any law compelling such a transfer of property would be unconstitutional. Welfare violates the Takings Clause because property cannot be taken for private reasons as outlined by Samuel Chase in Calder v. Bull. Of course, the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment allows taking tax revenue (property) without just compensation. But the Sixteenth Amendment does not allow takings for private reasons. Sure, the federal government can take property (tax money) for pubic reasons such as building infrastructure, the military, post offices, and other enumerated reasons. But there is no grant of power in the Sixteenth Amendment to take money for private reasons. In other words, there is no Constitutional basis for welfare. If Person A gives money (property) to Person B through government coercion that contract should be void. Under such a scenario neither Person is “pursuing” happiness under such a contract. Person B may be happy, but receiving happiness via coercion is not the same as pursuing happiness. On the other hand, if Person A gives money (property) to Person B through the kindness of their heart (charity), then the contract is legal. Person A is happy for doing the right thing and Person B pursued happiness via a charity or gift without any government interference and coercion.

Besides, welfare has been proven it does not work. Despite over a trillion dollars a year in local, state, and federal taxes into poverty programs the homeless and poverty rates continue to grow or have remained unchanged since they were implemented in the 1960s. This is a sad reality because first, taking money from struggling middle class Americans makes little sense. It pushes middle class families into a lower socio-economic status. Second, taking money from wealthy Americans also makes little sense since the revenue could be used to grow the economy with more jobs and higher wages. Third, welfare taxes mean that folks have less money to contribute to charities which are far more efficient and have less wasteful spending than government programs. Fourth, welfare eliminates many individual’s pursuit of happiness because it instead makes them dependent on government handouts since welfare recipients do not have to do anything to receive their benefits. Benefits that come without any sacrifice from the recipients makes them more susceptible to government dependency and therefore they are not pursuing happiness, but instead receiving happiness. Finally, and most importantly, eliminating federal welfare programs does not mean there would be no welfare. States could implement welfare programs which again, would be more efficient and less wasteful than federal programs. Remember, in the pursuit of happiness, both parties of a contract must benefit. Obviously only one party involved in coercive welfare programs benefit from the legislation or regulation and that is the person receiving the welfare benefits (and of course, the federal government which uses tax revenue to grow in size and stature – increased power).