A very simple yet elegant and painless solution to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the confiscation of private homes.?

During the time of the Continental Congress about 220 years ago there were quite a few similar situations where local governments tried to take homes away from people. Often they involved the mayors of towns who thought that they deserved to live in the best home in town. So they would confiscate the nicest mansion in town for their own home. We learned to use a lot of methods to deal with these tyrants. Then finally came the Constitution and the 5th Amendment which eliminated the need for all those methods forever or so we thought 220 years ago. Since the 5th amendment no longer seems to work the way it was intended to those same methods can be used.

A simple way to prevent local Municipalities from confiscating private property and selling it to private enterprises is for the state to file for the same properties that the city wants. The state can say they want the property for something such as an office building. That will immediately freeze the city's claim and prevent them from proceeding with any further actions involving the property.*

It creates a conflict concerning which agency, the state or the municipal government, has priority and the right to confiscate the property. The case must then be taken to a court for a decision by a judge. The judge will automatically find that the state has a greater 'imminent domain' than the municipal government. (Essentially, the state is bigger.)

Once the city's claim is found to be invalid then the state can drop their claim for the property and say they don't really need the property for an office building after all.

Yes, the city can start all over again but so can the state. Rest assured that when this technique was used 200 years ago the local government gave up and then they were all voted out of office in the next election.

This was used during the time of the Continental Congress which was a period of about ten years between the time of the Revolution and the signing of the US Constitution. Of course now the Federal Government could act the same part that the state did then. That way the federal government could enforce the Fifth Amendment without resorting to the Supreme Court.

A Federal agency could be created within the Justice Department to take care of it's citizens. It would only take an extremely small budget and perhaps two attorneys, with a few support personnel, in order to deal with this problem where ever it occurs in the U.S.**


*I don't seem to recall most of the legal terms and some of them that I do recall have changed in their meaning. So please bear with me in regards to my butchery of legalese.

**I intend to approach my senator about the possibility of legislating this agency into existence. Why? It is true that the states do prevent municipalities from confiscating property and giving it to other private enterprises by mainly passing laws simply prohibiting them from doing it. However, that is not really adequate for a number of reasons.

People change and who knows what the states will decide to do next year, or in five years, etc. This is particularly a problem for foreign investors. They know that they could end up becoming the focus of the selective confiscation of property focusing particularly on foreigners like they are.

The main thing that will assure those investors that it cannot occur is if the Federal government was fully committed to preventing it. Having an agency whose sole purpose was preventing this immoral confiscation of property from ever happening would assure most foreign investors that it wont ever happen to them.

The forming of this agency and the funding it at a cost of around $500,000 a year would probably increase foreign investments in the US by billions of dollars. (I don't come to destroy. I come to create.

Previous Page

2005-10 John Pinil