Yesterday's Supreme Court opinion on government taking of private property (including coins).
SanctionII
Posts: 12,488 ✭✭✭✭✭
In the OF there are posts about the Supreme Court decision yesterday that essentially approves government taking private property from private property owner A so that the government can then transfer ownership of same to private property owner B.
For all of you here on the US Coin Forum, I recommend that you go to the OF and read those threads. Also read the court decision. What a blow to concept of private property ownership and "private property". If government can take private property in these circumstances, is any property truly "private" anymore.
To keep this thread coin related, lets assume that collector A (i.e. Mr. Pittman) is a person of modest means and influence who through 30-50 years of hard work acquires the best collection ever of a certain series of coins. His plan is to pass the collection to his kids, who are also collectors, and then to future generations in his family. Collector B is rich beyond measure and has but one dream, that being the acquistion of collecotr A's collection. Collector A will not sell at any price. Collector B, through connections, power, influence and political contributions convinces Uncle Same to initiate eminent domain proceedings against collector A to "take" his collection and thereafter transfer same to collector B.
Yesterday's court decision could be cited as precedent that would allow the above transfer of the above collection from collector A, to the government, to collector B to take place.
Your thoughts and comments please.
For all of you here on the US Coin Forum, I recommend that you go to the OF and read those threads. Also read the court decision. What a blow to concept of private property ownership and "private property". If government can take private property in these circumstances, is any property truly "private" anymore.
To keep this thread coin related, lets assume that collector A (i.e. Mr. Pittman) is a person of modest means and influence who through 30-50 years of hard work acquires the best collection ever of a certain series of coins. His plan is to pass the collection to his kids, who are also collectors, and then to future generations in his family. Collector B is rich beyond measure and has but one dream, that being the acquistion of collecotr A's collection. Collector A will not sell at any price. Collector B, through connections, power, influence and political contributions convinces Uncle Same to initiate eminent domain proceedings against collector A to "take" his collection and thereafter transfer same to collector B.
Yesterday's court decision could be cited as precedent that would allow the above transfer of the above collection from collector A, to the government, to collector B to take place.
Your thoughts and comments please.
0
Comments
In plain english
RJ
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
But for the sake of argument . . . the first coin IMO it would apply to would be the 1933 Saint. The government could allege that the coin is of national imporantance and the governement has an interest in preserving it for the benefit of the country.
The point of this thread is not specifically about coins, it is about whether it is appropriate to have the government have the power to take ANY private property (real property, personal property, intangible property) from person A and transfer same to person B. The constitution allows for government taking of private property for a "public" use or purpose.
The fact that private property owned and used by A, would generate more tax revenue if owned and used by B is considered enough of a "public" use or purpose to justify the government's taking of same from A and immediately transferring same to B is simply appalling.
Again, this court decision erodes the concept of "private" property.
As stated by Justice Stevens:
... the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners’ land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245 (“A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void”); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403 (1896). Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan. 268 Conn., at 54, 843 A. 2d, at 536. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case.
Justices O'Connor and Thomas filed strong dissents arguing that the Court should not construe a "public use" so broadly, but, at its heart, a taking still requires a public use.
Now that is a good arguemt. And this decision certainly provides stronger support for it.
Chicolini: Mint? No, no, I no like a mint. Uh - what other flavor you got?
The point about the 1933 St. Gaudens $20.00 gold piece being of national importance (historical, etc.) and thus through eminent domain being taken by the government and placed into the National Coin Collection is well taken.
If it happens and if two months later the powers that be decide that the National Coin Collection is simply "surplus" government property that should be disposed of through sale into the private sector in order to raise money to reduce the national deficit/debt, would that trouble you.
<< <i>If it happens and if two months later the powers that be decide that the National Coin Collection is simply "surplus" government property that should be disposed of through sale into the private sector in order to raise money to reduce the national deficit/debt, would that trouble you. >>
Just about everything our government has done these past five years has troubled me. People think that court opinions and new restrictive laws will not or do not effect them. Unfortunately, what many do not realize is that, when you are conducting an expriment that may have some rather nasty detrimental effects on you, you do it as secretly as possible, not wide out in the open for the masses to see. Many people have said that the DMCA does not affect them. The Patriot Act does not affect them. Opinions in intellectual "property" does not affect them. The "war on Terrorism" or the "War in Iraq" does not affect them.
But, we are ALL affected by bad and corrupt government. An opinion that could help a private industry to gain from the stripping of a fundamental right of another under a guise of "public betterment" or "usefulness" WILL be used corruptly when the chance opens up. I am sure that most everybody here would be outraged to have your internet packets recorded and scrutinized by your local police department WITHOUT a court order or anyone elses knowledge but their own, and to have a mega-corporation DDoS your personal computer as you are trying to conduct business from home, or have said corporation crack into your internet connected computer and gain access to your passwords, credit card information, banking information...and without any court order to do so.
These activities DO happen because laws that have not yet been put to the test in the courts ALLOW it. Now, you have an opinion that, hypothetically, says that as you build your collection over 30 or 40 years as an inheritence to your children, on your $40-$60k a year, and you acquire those few key dates and that one rarity in your life, one of these mega-rich corporate players can ask a favor from his friends that he throws a few million $$$ at each year to come up with some "legitimate" excuse to simply up and pluck your life's work away from you and give it to him/her.
This is very FAR from being overexaggerated or a stretch, because our government for the past eight years has already been placing laws into effect that have completely seperated the financial classes in America, and have given government level powers to the multi-million $$$ corporations for their own PRIVATE agenda and gain. To think that this opinion cannot and will not apply to numismatics, similar rulings and instances have already occured to intellectual "property" in the technical industry.
And you want to know HOW the government will be able to do it??? Just search through the posts over the past 90 days and look up "regulate"! It appalls me that people who would claim to be intellectual would even suggest "government regulation" of a hobby such as ours. And not only that, but also financial floor requirements just to be involved in it! Break the regulation, lose your coins!
Things to think about.
I'll shut up now.
www.Numismatic-Playground.com
Please consider actually reading the Court's opinion before spouting off. Though ultimately sold to another private concern, the purpose of the taking, according to the majority, must be for the public good -- for example, as necessary to advance a development plan deemed to be critical to the community by the community leaders. Who do you want accountable for making those kinds of decisions: local, elected officials, or distant federal courts?
Tiger trout, Deerfield River, c. 2001.
SMS: Your post reminds me of a good story:
A Mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife opening a package. "What food might this contain?" He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.
Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."
The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house." The pig sympathized but said, "I am so very sorry Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured that you are in my prayers."
The mouse turned to the cow. She said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you. But it's no skin off my nose."
So the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone.
That very night a sound was heard throughout the house like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey.
The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness she did not see that it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught.
The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever. Now everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient.
But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig.
The farmer's wife did not get well. She died. So many people came for her funeral the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.
So the next time you hear that someone is facing a problem and think that it doesn't concern you, remember that when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk.
<< <i>Government, through eminent domain, taking private property for "private use" and not for "public use" is the point. The government will not acquire the property and use it for any public purpose. It will simply and immediately convey it to another private owner whose "private use" of the property is more to the liking of the government.
Please consider actually reading the Court's opinion before spouting off. Though ultimately sold to another private concern, the purpose of the taking, according to the majority, must be for the public good -- for example, as necessary to advance a development plan deemed to be critical to the community by the community leaders. Who do you want accountable for making those kinds of decisions: local, elected officials, or distant federal courts? >>
I read it and I saw it that way too. Just because he agreed with the dissent and not the majority doesnt mean that he didnt read it.
Thomas:
If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent.
In plain english"
I was thinking the same thing....
Todays decision rests on the taking of property from one person for the greater good of the community...even though the taking of the property is not directly for public use, but rather for private use that will offer a benefit to the public by way of increased tax revenues. Does this sound familiar or what?
Anyway, let's say that I have a collection of coins that are priceless and seldom seen...let's say they haven't been seen since the last major exposition in 1975. Let's say that there is great public demand to view these "National Treasures" of "Historical Importance".
Alright, I'm an old geezer and want to die with my coins and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let any of the public snots get a glimpse of these babies.
Some left-wing, commielib dogooder on the city council has a brilliant idea. This guy thinks that if the city could display these puppies at the local convention center they could charge a pretty penny for an entrance fee and rake in lots of loot that would help them to fund that new "home for abused husbands" that the city council just approved.
Sure, this is nonsense, but using the reasoning offered by the lefties on this court, they could do it.
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
Well one scenario would be for a public agency to give the old geezer so many problems in other areas that the coins were sold to pay legal bills. Don't think it doesn't happen because it goes on every day in CAL.
The old geezer 'gives up'
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
When it comes to government taking of private property, should there be any concrete definition of what is and what is not a "public use or purpose"?
If so, proposed takings by a government which are outside of the definition of "public use or purpose" should be prohibited and simply not allowed.
If not, then anyone in the public and private sector who wants any private property that someone else has and is not willing to part with simply needs to be clever and creative to come up with a factual situation (no matter how illogical, incredulous, tenous, remote or farfetched) to support the presence of a "public use or purpose". Doing so will in the government taking private property from A and transferring it to B.
The implications of this court decision are not good for the average citizen and his/her property rights. The rich and powerful, both in the public and private sector, will run roughshod over the average citizen. However, it is nothing that the elite should have to worry about (i.e. I do not think that there is a chance in hell or heaven that a local, state or federal government entity would use eminent domain to "take" the Kennedy Estate at Hyannisport or the Bush Estate at Kennibunkport from the Kennedies or from the Bushes. No public beachs, public parks or even commercial.residential developments will be sprouting up on these properties anytime, ever.
In China.
Now they don't do it all that much anymore.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Although this is troubling, I'm far more concerned about other court rulings--such as the one long ago that has murdered tens of millions of babies. Eminent domain really isn't something I understand, but I'm pretty familiar with the concept of murder.
Uh oh. Where's Cameron when we need him most?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Gary - Maybe those that are interested are posting on the Libertarian forums while we screw around here? Then again, maybe not.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>The main thing that bothers me about this thread is that most responders are not interested
Gary - Maybe those that are interested are posting on the Libertarian forums while we screw around here? Then again, maybe not. >>
Probably and unfortunately the Libertarian forums essentially are playing to the same band. But what choice do the Libertarians have? Even when Harry Browne made it to the ballot in all 50 states, this government wouldn't even allow him in on the debates!
Only C-Span did when they had the 3rd party debates and what was notable about that was the National Socialist Party was there protesting as they usually do, filled with all the scorn and hate.........toward nobody exept the Libertarians and Harry Browne.
They never protest against the democrats or republicans becuase those two are giving the socialists exactly what they've wanted obviosly.
There's a few Libertarians around though but we're definitely out numbered.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>I'm far more concerned about other court rulings--such as the one long ago that has murdered tens of millions of babies.
Uh oh. Where's Cameron when we need him most? >>
You mean kittens!!!!