I am a fan of the work of Dr. Peter Breggin since long before Covid, and I believe the current issues are possibly his finest hour, where all his long experience is paying off. His book about Covid (Covid-19 and the Global Predators, We Are the Prey), which he wrote...
Court Opinions Have Turned Eminent Domain into Court Sanctioned Theft
You may be familiar with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. This requires that when private property is taken for public use, that the owner receives “just compensation.” The practice of taking private property for the public, called eminent domain, is nothing new in the world. However, the case of PennEast v New Jersey is the latest in a series of court opinions that have turned the idea of the eminent domain into court-sanctioned theft.
First, we need to acknowledge that eminent domain is a legitimate power of government.
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of a public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.
Eminent Domain – The Free Legal Dictionary: It’s just as important to know the limitations on this power established within the Constitution of the United States. These limitations are apparently lost on both Congress and the courts.
… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at the problems with the case Penneast Pipeline v. New Jersey.
Building a Pipeline
Congress passed the Natural Gas Act in 1938 to regulate the transportation and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce. To build an interstate pipeline, a natural gas company must obtain from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a certificate reflecting that such construction “is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.” 15 U. S. C. §717f(e).
We start with an act of Congress, the Natural Gas Act (NGA), passed in 1938. In its very first sentence, the court has already made a mistake. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, not interstate transportation.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
The problem is only a tiny semantic difficulty in this case. 15 USC §717f(C) does state that:
(2) The Commission may issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to a natural-gas company for the transportation in interstate commerce of natural gas used by any person for one or more high-priority uses, as defined, by rule, by the Commission, in the case of-
(A) natural gas sold by the producer to such person; and
(B) natural gas produced by such person.
15 USC §717f(C)
That sounds good so far, right? The commission set up by Congress may issue certificates of public convenience and necessity to those who wish to sell natural gas across state lines. That, however, is not the entire law.
As disclosed in reports of the Federal Trade Commission made pursuant to S. Res. 83 (Seventieth Congress, first session) and other reports made pursuant to the authority of Congress, it is declared that the business of transporting and selling natural gas for ultimate distribution to the public is affected with a public interest and that federal regulation in matters relating to the transportation of natural gas and the sale thereof in interstate and foreign commerce is necessary for the public interest.
15 USC §717(a)
Congress simply declared that transporting and selling natural gas to the public is a public interest, and therefore interstate and foreign commerce. In other words, Congress effectively declared that any public interest was suddenly interstate commerce, regardless if it crossed state or national borders. Suddenly Congress claimed the authority to regulate whatever they consider a public interest. While this case does involve interstate commerce, we should recognize that the law this court is using is already unconstitutional, illegal, and void.
As originally enacted, the NGA did not provide a mechanism for certificate holders to secure property rights necessary to build pipelines, often leaving certificate holders with only an illusory right to build.
The court notes that in the original NGA, the was no mechanism for certificate holders to “secure property rights.” It appears to the court this was a mistake, an oversight, while in fact, it was not only the law; it was the supreme law. As I’ve already quoted, the Fifth Amendment allows private property to be taken only for public use. Yet Congress later claimed the authority not only to take private property for private use but to authorize private entities to do so for it. In other words, the 1938 National Gas Act did not grant the power to secure property rights because the Constitution did not delegate that power to Congress.
Congress remedied this defect in 1947 by amending the NGA to authorize certificate holders to exercise the federal eminent domain power, thereby ensuring that certificates of public convenience and necessity could be given effect.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the United States authorized to exercise eminent domain to transfer property from one private entity to another. What this court refers to as a “defect” is called the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the Constitution does not authorize the United States to delegate its eminent domain to another. Yet Congress simply spoke into existence this terrible power.
When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of the property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipeline or pipelines for the transportation of natural gas, and the necessary land or other property, in addition to right-of-way, for the location of compressor stations, pressure apparatus, or other stations or equipment necessary to the proper operation of such pipeline or pipelines, it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts.
Congress simply decided that they had the power to do whatever they think is necessary. This is not only a violation of the Tenth Amendment, but the very structure of our republic.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If we had a properly functioning judicial system, one that placed the language of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and was dedicated to opining justly in all its cases, this law would have been recognized as unconstitutional decades ago. Instead, this law has not only been allowed to stand, but multiple courts have also ignored their oaths to support the Constitution and allowed Congress to effectively rewrite it for their benefit. So much for checks and balances. In their tradition of holding previous opinions above the Constitution, this court conveniently skips right over the constitutional problems, then goes on further to destroy property rights in America.
As relevant here, PennEast sought to condemn parcels of land in which either New Jersey or the New Jersey Conservation Foundation asserts a property interest.
Notice a couple of very important points here. Two groups, both the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, “assert a property interest.” These entities don’t simply have a property interest; they have property rights. The very same Fifth Amendment that Congress uses as their authority for eminent domain states:
No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Some of you may say, “Wait, Paul, these aren’t people. It’s a state and an organization.” But who controls the State of New Jersey? Who ultimately owns whatever is owned by the State of New Jersey? Don’t we call it public land? Yes, the land of the State of New Jersey is public land, but does that give Congress the authority to take land from a state? No, it doesn’t. And who owns the New Jersey Conservation Foundation? Who controls it? Isn’t it the people who ultimately own these properties? And since this land is not being taken for public use, this is not a Fifth Amendment taking. What this is, is government-sanctioned theft, with the blessing of the very same judicial branch that was created to protect our rights, including our right to property.
Held: Section 717f(h) authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or States.
Section 717f(h) of the National Gas Act is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal and void, but this court simply ignores that inconvenient fact to get to this opinion.
The Preamble to the Constitution tells us: We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
U.S. Constitution – Preamble
It is unfortunate, but what we have here is almost the exact opposite. We have a union that is being corrupted, justice that only exists for those who can pay for it, states are being pitted against each other, those who are to defend us are being used to persecute us, and the welfare of the powerful few are placed above the general population. Worst of all, the blessings of liberty are being ground under the foot of an ever more tyrannical government. This case is just the latest example of the failure of expecting those in government to act as a check and balance against each other. And every time states allow themselves and their citizens to be treated as subjects of the federal government, freedom, and liberty in America die just that much more. This is why John Jay said:
Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.
John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States
Because the American people are generally ignorant of their constitution, their rights are being violated, and they don’t even know it. Because we expected the government to teach the rising generation to be free rather than doing it ourselves, the idea of freedom and liberty has become anathema to this generation. Because of our ignorance, we don’t know how to defend and assert our rights. Also, because of this ignorance, all branches of government at all levels are well on their way to converting the United States of America from the land of the free to the land of the subjected. The fact that we are letting this happen proves that we are no longer the home of the brave, but the home of cowards. The only reason for hope is that there is still a small glowing ember of the sacred fire of liberty. The question is, will the people of New Jersey, with the help of patriots across the nation, help fan that ember of liberty, or allow it to be crushed by those who pervert the Constitution?
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.