Those who vainly profess the Constitution to be a “Living Document” might do well to note the following words of the late pundit, Samuel Francis: “The final and unpredictable irony of our [nation’s] history may be that we were more civilized at the beginning of it than at the end of it.”
One would think that all people of reason should wish to avoid the fulfillment of this dire prophesy. But it would appear that it is not that simple. One reason may be that it leaves us as a people with but one avenue of recourse that is not easily pursued. Collectively, we must be willing to develop and exhibit the character and integrity that is a prerequisite to our wanting to abide by the fundamental moral principles upon which this nation was founded as they were embodied by our nation’s founders in the United States Constitution. Our generation and the ones that follow must be made aware that when they wrote this document it was a direct response to their personal experiences of having lived under the shackles of tyranny. Foremost in their minds, however, was not only their desire to set in place a government that would avoid a recurrence of that misery, but to replace it with one that would enable all those governed by it to enjoy certain unalienable rights and freedoms that, at the very least, would ensure every citizen a foreseeable opportunity to obtain prosperity in their lifetime.
Two of the fundamental building blocks necessary to that moral foundation upon which they intended to build this country were that: (i) the right of all citizens to possess private property was to be safeguarded as sacred; and (ii) government intrusions upon any citizen’s private property was to be limited to only those infrequent occasions where there was found to exist a necessary public use absolutely mandating that it be taken. And even in that case the last two clauses of the Fifth Amendment expressly provide that nobody’s property shall not be taken without the citizen being afforded both due process and just compensation.
The founders knew that property is wealth, and that, unless protected by law, wealth will eventually be taken by the strong and that in the end any government is always stronger than any of its citizens. The founders knew from their personal experiences with King George that, absent the necessary limitations and prohibitions they imposed upon the power of the government they were forming, it would not be long before any citizen’s wealth for all practical purposes would again be exposed to seizure at any time at the government’s whim. In short, they knew that, if a person’s property were so exposed, tyranny would once again soon reign in the states they were then attempting to unite.
Regretfully, however, this sense of urgency soon faded into memory such that now, a little over two hundred years later, we are being handed decisions by the Supreme Court like Kelo v. The City of New London, Connecticut; a decision that Justice O’Connor powerfully argued against as essentially eviscerating the Public Use Clause in its entirety from the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution. Sadly, however, her arguments were unavailing and private property now suffers the very exposure to governmental tyranny the founders had sought to avoid. Even sadder, though, but for a few who are heard protesting the decision here and there, it would seem the average citizen on the street could not be less concerned about the Kelo decision and others like it.
It would seem, therefore, that the immediate question that needs asking is how has our country changed from its inception that its people would allow such a travesty to stand? Conservative Joseph Sobran I think has correctly pointed out two reasons that may have contributed to this outrage. As to the Justices that rendered the decision, he noted: “The Supreme Court has gradually changed its character from a body of men who had to justify their decisions with reason and evidence to an authoritarian body whose word is law (and whose stabs at logic only confuse matters).” And then on the subject of the general public’s complacency, he points out: “Most people, being intellectually timid, rely on authority and hate to believe that the authorities can err seriously.” But then he rightly points out that “all human authority is not only fallible, but, over time, is virtually certain to err wildly.” In short, it is no small irony that those conservatives among us who would seek to preserve what this country was originally intended to be would do well today to follow the admonition that appeared on the bumper stickers of liberals in the 60’s and be prepared to not only “Question Authority,” but to “Challenge the Establishment” represented by those same liberals who over the last thirty years have risen to and assumed positions of power in this country.
Should you think that this overstates the case, consider carefully the recently uttered words of Presidential hopeful (and former 60’s liberal) Senator Hillary Clinton when discussing the recent profits of this country’s oil companies. “The Democrats know what needs to be done and we’re working to push our agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund …” (emphasis added)
Why she wants to “take” their profits, is irrelevant. The point is that when those in government realize they have the unfettered power to take people’s property there is no reason to believe that they will not use that power, nor is there any reason to believe that such a government will necessarily limit those takings to your real estate. Next will come a taking of your company’s profits, then your income … your gold … your jewelry … and then … you. After all, the enslavement of citizens is the ultimate end of any tyranny, and that, in turn, almost always follows after the government’s seizure of its citizens’ property. If you doubt this, perhaps you would do well to reexamine Hitler’s edicts with respect to the taking of the property of Jews in the years immediately preceding the Holocaust, as perhaps, he was able to learn from watching Stalin in the years preceding that. The founding fathers were aware of the possibility of such injustices. Perhaps we would do well to remember them and take them seriously. It really could be that important to us and the children we are raising. Otherwise, we may well find Samuel Francis was correct. Our society may indeed be less civilized when it ends than when it began.
© 2007 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.
Cliff Nichols is a Member of the Board of Trustees of AEL and also is an attorney practicing criminal defense in Los Angeles, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 458-1739, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com. Other recent articles written by Mr. Nichols and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press are available at www.thedailystand.com.