|
Politicians are scurrying like rats to fix the mistakes of their generation before their children inherit their problems. 2008 Presidential Candidates have the pressure to resolve such issues as health care, social security, taxes and government spending, border security and immigration, the war in Iraq , education, and national security. It is these issues that people are scrutinizing candidates over and will help voters decide which candidate they will select. When studying the candidates, and when deciding on our final choice, we must also look at each candidate's stance, or lack thereof, on basic human liberties and rights.
The rights I am speaking of are those in the Bill of Rights, which have the responsibility to specifically protect human liberties from the government. These views often get overlooked because members of Congress and the President have limited influence over these issues. The power of these rights resides within the Judicial Branch. The only rights that candidates take positions on are those protected by the First and Second Amendments. Ron Paul is the sole candidate to take a stance on the Fifth Amendment, which is where government infringement is taking place.
The last part of the Fifth Amendment says, “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Four out of the five remaining presidential candidates do not even mention property rights as an issue and voters do not see it as an issue, but Ron Paul sees the crime that the Supreme Court committed against the Constitution. Most Americans believe their right to private property is not endangered. As many people sit comfortably in their homes believing the Fifth Amendment protects the government from taking their house and land, the Supreme Court is telling them to think again.
Eight years ago, the city of New London , Conn. was suffering from a slow economy. In order to revive the economy, city officials hired a private company called New London Development Corporation to create new economic activities. In order to do this, ninety acres of land would have had to be acquired, and this included 115 residential lots. All except fifteen people agreed to sell to the corporation. The City of New London took these 15 properties under Eminent Domain and condemned the properties. These 15 homeowners sued the city in Connecticut courts claiming that Eminent Domain is allowed only for public use. The city was taking their private property and giving it to a private company. In 2005, the Supreme Court made a 5-4 ruling that that allowed the City of New London to take these properties under Eminent Domain and give them to a private company in hopes it will help economic conditions. The Supreme Court stated that “public use” is the same as “public purpose” meaning that acquiring land for publicly owned property such as roads and bridges is the same as giving land to a private company in order to stimulate the economy. They are both for the betterment of the people.
Fifteen people fought for and lost their homes, of those, some had lived in their houses their entire life. No one imagines losing their home to the government. Many believe they are protected. After this ruling, many states created legislation limiting Eminent Domain, but legislation is limited. Private property is vital part of a free market economy, because if people own property, they will take care of and maintain the property. So if your property is important to you, make sure you know your candidate's stance on private property ownership.
|
