Proposed Private Property Amendment To The U.S. Constitution

(Eminent Domain Amendment, version 2)

 

by Kerry Thomas

May 31, 2008

 

 

In an effort to eliminate the practice of acquiring private property by a public entity for use by another private entity (an abuse of the Eminent Domain laws), the following Constitutional Amendment is proposed:

 

“Section 1 - Whenever any private property acquired for public purposes is transferred, sold, gifted, or in any way whatsoever conveyed into private ownership, the private entity from which the private property was acquired for public purposes, it’s heirs, trustees, assigns, agents, or other successors shall be afforded the first right to re-acquire the public property, under the same terms under which the private property was acquired for public purposes.”

 

Under the terms of Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

 

That “just compensation” part of the 5th Amendment could also use some clarification.  Perhaps I should add a second section to my proposed Amendment:

 

“Section 2 - Just Compensation, as described in Amendment V of this Constitution, shall be determined by not less than three qualified appraisers, who shall be familiar with the true value of the private property in question.”

 

The 5th Amendment doesn’t really address the question of whether the government can take private property for private use, as has become the practice in many areas of the country.  A government body takes someone’s land, then turns it over to a private developer to build a shopping mall, or a business center, or condos, or any other private development.  Usually, the argument in favor of such takings goes along the lines of “It’s in the public’s interest” to develop the new private enterprise, or because the new enterprise will generate more tax revenue to the government than the existing use of the private property.

 

On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court actually approved this practice as being Constitutional, in the case of Kelo v. New London.

 

The process of amending the United States Constitution is a long one, and must follow the method and process spelled out in Article V of the Constitution:

 

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

 

This proposed Amendment is intended to safeguard the private property rights of every citizen in America.  If a developer wants your property, but you don’t want to sell, the government should not have the right to just take your property and give it to the developer.

 

(I previously wrote a similar editorial on December 6, 2006.  See Eminent Domain Amendment)