Ever since 2005 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. Town of New London, Connecticut, there has been heightened attention paid to the Constitution’s protection of private property rights. The Kelo Court held that the government’s power of eminent domain was so great that it could take one person’s private property for another’s private economic gain. The Court chose to rewrite our nation’s Constitution by substituting public “purpose” for public “use.” The purpose here was to improve the tax base.

The Price Of Successfully Challenging The Federal Interpretation Of The Clean Water Act

In 2006 I wrote about the United States Supreme Court rendering its highly anticipated decision in John Rapanos v. United States. The issue was whether the term “waters of the United States” as used in the Clean Water Act included wetlands on private property not directly abutting navigable waters.

Of particular interest was the effect that the Court’s two newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, might have on the course of our nation––particularly in the area of private property rights.

Our ancestors recognized the idea and the ideal that every individual possesses unalienable rights. When this idea is respected it provides great advantages to individuals and society.

Have you ever bought a puzzle and discovered all the pieces were there – but there was no picture? The purpose of this article is to provide you with that “picture” and a look at both allies and opposition.

Consider the word “sacrifice”. Define this as voluntarily giving up something of value in hope of a return of greater value or for a higher purpose.

What could sound more friendly and beneficial than Scenic Byways? It has the sound of bucolic, small town scenic back roads being preserved for those quiet drives. Like so many ‘good’ programs, this one can cost the holders of property their property rights.

“Right now we don’t go knocking on doors,” said Planning Director Tom Burns. The ambiguity of this statement causes one to seriously question, “When exactly will they be pounding on my door?”

Court warning to Planning officials -- immunity lost!  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found a silver lining within a gray cloud. The Court applied the findings of the Supreme Court's Lingle v. Chevron to eliminate government's long-held defense regarding private property takings. The court ruled that government officials can no longer rely on the "substantially advances a legitimate state interest" defense when regulating property.

The reaction of the Half Moon Bay City Council to the $36,795,000 judgment was a mixture of shock, mystification and dismay.  In addition to compensating Ms. Yamagiwa for the loss of private property, it is hoped that Chief Judge Walker’s opinion will remind all government decision makers to first ask the question:  “What about the Constitution?”

The recently decided Ninth Circuit case, Crown Point  vs. Sun Valley, illustrates the contrast between social justice and equal justice. Social justice relies on the establishment of  "civil law, " which is designed to expand government and its partners authority at the expense of individual liberty. Equal justice on the other hand respects individual rights and private property. The Crown Point case sets an example for equal justice.