WHOSE LAND IS THIS?
By Darrell L. Castle
Vice-Chairman,
Constitution Party National Committee
“This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me.”
Woody Guthrie
Does this land belong to each American property owner individually as private property? Does this land belong to all Americans collectively as some sort of communitarian concept? Does it belong to the United States Government which then dictates when and under what circumstances it can be used? This is one of the most important issues of our day. The historic right of the ownership of private property is at stake.
The Founding Fathers left no doubt about where they stood on the question. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution concludes with these words, “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God; and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Today, the American economy is staggering under a debt load of some 12 trillion dollars of public debt and an estimated 2009 deficit of 1.75 trillion dollars. Regulations, taxes, falling revenue streams, high costs of imported energy, rising unemployment, and falling stock prices are concerns as Congress struggles to deal with these problems. One can’t help but wonder why the Congress chose as its first order of business in 2009, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This bill passed the Senate January 15, 2009 with twenty Republicans joining the Democrat majority. It now awaits only the House’s consideration of the Senate’s version, and the President’s signature, to become law.
This bill would give control of about 26 million acres of forest land along the northern parts of the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and others to be designated as National Park, wilderness, or heritage areas. According to the Bureau of Land Management, it would also remove about 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 300 million barrels of oil from potential production in Wyoming. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) one of the most outspoken opponents of the bill, pointed out that this bill would remove almost as much energy from potential future production as is currently produced in our two most productive energy states of Alaska and Texas.
In order to put the questions raised by this bill into proper perspective, one should consider the following scenarios:
Suppose a man had a small tract of land in northern Vermont with 10 acres of timber and
10 acres of pasture fields. His family has lived on this land for generations. His father taught him to hunt and fish there and then left it to him to do the same with his children. One day a letter from the federal government arrives that tells him his land is now part of a new National Park system. Even if he is allowed to continue living on it he can’t harvest its timber or use it in the other ways he might desire to use it. The letter tells him that the government’s action does not trigger the takings provision of the Fifth Amendment because he still owns it and therefore is not entitled to just compensation. Despite the fact that he may not use it as he wishes, he must continue to pay taxes on it.
Suppose a land owner in Wyoming has ten thousand acres of ranch land and under that land is one million feet of natural gas and a lot of oil. How is he to get proper use of that land’s resources after the federal government sets it aside under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009?
Suppose a man owns a small amount of land in Maine and the federal government “discovers” some tiny species of animal that fits under the Endangered Species Act so he is prohibited from any use of his land.
These scenarios could all be argued to be takings, only in a regulatory sense, and therefore the owner is not entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Even if compensation is offered, the value is far lower than actual appraised value because the land cannot be used.
The owner could always raise a court challenge to these regulatory takings if he had a few hundred thousand dollars for legal fees. Perhaps he would lose anyway as did the plaintiffs in Kelo v. City of New London in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property for private use. Kelo was an owner of a small business and his property was taken under eminent domain and given to a private developer.
What can we do to prevent this egregious bill from passing? How can we protect the right to own private property as well as the environment? We could lobby our Congressional representatives to vote no, but if it passes anyway remember that to change the law we must change the government. Go to www.constitutionparty.com and help us as we work to change the government.
