Eminent Domain, Then Euthanasia
If the Supreme Court allows government to take away your property rights to make money, then why can’t government save money by not treating you if you become too sick?
The court’s recent decision in Kelo v. New London strikes at the heart of our freedoms,and, if left unchallenged, imperils our right to life itself.
How do we derive such a broad threat from this private property case?
In the Kelo decision, the justices voted 5-4 that the city of New London, Conn., could take away Susette Kelo’s property, including her house, and transfer it to the New London Development Corp., a private business, for possible future real estate development.
Their conclusion is a frightening revision of the Fifth Amendment, which explicitly provides for “just compensation” in government takings. The amendment explicitly limits such takings to “public use”,projects such as roads or public buildings.
But in its 1954 Berman v. Parker case, the Supreme Court ruled that the social engineering goal of revitalizing “blighted” urban areas was enough to allow condemnation of buildings and property for real estate development.
This transmuted the Constitution’s “public use” requirement. As the Institute for Justice notes, “Public use became public purpose, which then became public benefit.”
It may seem a stretch, but taking property because it’s blighted or could serve some “better” use has parallels with eliminating some human beings because they are old, weak, sick or otherwise “marginal.”
After all, our highest court now has ruled that a local government’s quest for revenue is a good enough reason for allowing it to seize someone’s property and hand it to a developer. Following a similar logic, people deemed to be a cash drain on government or society could be forced to forfeit their lives for the public benefit.
This is not an abstract fear. Poverty and weakness already are justifications for euthanasia in some countries.
With Kelo and the messy Terri Schiavo case, the American judiciary is advancing euthanasia and imperiling individual rights.
What to do? So far, property rights still are largely governed by state and localities. So we should join efforts to strengthen state constitutions to protect against unjustifiable government takings. A number of groups are working to that end, including the Castle Coalition (www.castlecoalition.org).
We must join the battle begun on July 4, 1776, as articulated in our Declaration of Independence, to assert the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Michael Arnold Glueck
Robert J. Cihak
(Glueck, of Newport Beach, and Cihak, of Seattle, are M.D.’s and frequent commentators on medical, legal and ethical issues.)
Housing Bonds
In November 2002, OCTax opposed Proposition 46, the state’s $2.1 billion bond to provide about 131,000 units of “affordable housing.” Here’s what we said:
“State and local government use fees, restrictive zoning, overzealous environmental regulation and obeisance to NIMBYs to keep the supply of housing below what is needed.
“Taxpayers and homebuyers pay the resulting artificially high home prices, then pay high property taxes on the inflated values. Proposition 64 would victimize taxpayers a third time by forcing them to subsidize homes for those who have been priced out of the market by governments’ own actions.
“Better solutions would be to:
“Eliminate the prevailing wage requirement on affordable housing projects; reform construction-defect litigation laws that make lawyers rich but discourage construction of affordable housing.
“Reform laws that require full environmental impact reports on developments that replace existing concrete; and reform low-density rules that compel developers to build large, expensive homes.”
Unfortunately, the voters approved Proposition 46, probably moved by the promise of doing nice things for needy people.
A study by Sacramento Bee reporter John Hill reveals that:
The money was never set aside for needy families, battered women, veterans and others featured in the Proposition 46 campaign.
The campaign promised 30,000 new emergency shelter beds, but only 5,500 will be built.
The number of housing units built falls far short of what was promised.
The Legislature has raided the bond funds to pay for budget shortfalls.
Promised audits to ensure that the money is spent properly have not been done.
Reed Royalty
OCTax
San Juan Capistrano
