Private Property Rights

Statement

Private Property Rights

The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution provides protection of private property from unlawful seizure by the government. Known as the "takings clause," Americans' property rights have been secured by the phrase "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" since shortly after the very birth of our nation.

I am an ardent defender of private property rights - not only an individual's right to ownership, but also to the use of public lands for recreational and sporting uses.

When government seizes land through the process called "eminent domain," it should fairly and adequately compensate landowners for diminished access to their land and the process should never be used for political or financial ends.

Though intended to be used for "public purposes," such as taking blighted or unusable property for school, road or park construction, eminent domain has been used in the past not only on behalf of large business to take property which could have been purchased on the open market but also to "protect" land which could be used for energy exploration or even public recreation.

One of the most controversial decisions involving private property rights occurred on July 23, 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling which potentially opened the floodgates to eminent domain abuse. In Kelo v City of New London, by a 5-4 decision, the Court condoned the right of local governments to seize private property from its lawful owner and give it to a private developer for the promises of more tax revenue.

The following year, on June 23, 2006, President George W. Bush issued an executive order limiting the federal government's use of eminent domain. Consistent with the intent of the Fifth Amendment, this order assures private property can only be taken with just compensation and be used for the benefit of the general public. The power of eminent domain may not be used for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Kelo is of course not the first controversy involving eminent domain, as the federal government owns more than 670 million acres of land, almost one-third of the land in America.

Federal ownership often carries unintended consequences. For example, in Washington D.C., where 24 percent of the total acreage is owned by the federal government, the District loses an estimated $400 million to $1.1 billion each year in tax revenue.

While that number is significant, imagine the revenues lost in the State of Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is federally owned. In fact, there are 12 Western states which rank above the District in federal land ownership, and these states are losing billions in potential tax revenue each year. Nebraska ranks among the lowest states, with less than 2 percent of the land being federally owned.

Beyond tax revenue, other risks exist. Access to land for agriculture, recreation and hunting can be cut off with the stroke of a pen. As a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and the Western Caucus, I want to make sure we defend public lands access, private property rights, sensible natural resource development, responsible environmental regulations, and the rights of sportsmen.

James Madison, in writing about an individual's right to property stated "...where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

He went on to say, "government is instituted to protect property of every sort" and "that is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." These words of wisdom, first written in the Federalist Papers, clearly demonstrate the intent of our Founding Fathers in developing the Fifth Amendment.

Our country should remain true to the spirit of these words, and only the most judicious use of eminent domain should be exercised.

Source