September 17, 2021

September 17, 2021

Your Source for Free Speech,
Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Where in the Constitution is Government Given the Authority to Regulate Property?

by | Jul 19, 2021 |

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The State of California believes they can order their citizens to allow people on their property against their will. They believe that businesses exist solely at their discretion. At least, that is how the government of the state had been acting for the last few years. But does the State of California, or any state for that matter, have the right to grant third-party legal access to your property? The recent case of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid asked just such a question. The answer, while encouraging, shows that the courts or just as tyrannical as the State of California. They just apply it in a different way.

As I pointed out in a previous article, what California was doing with its regulation isnt so much a takingas a deprivation of property. A California regulation grants labor organizations a right to take access” to an agricultural employers property in order to solicit support for unionization.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company both filed suit claiming that Californias law represented an uncompensated easement to enter their property, and therefore constituted a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This was denied by both the District and Circuit Courts, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court, which found for the growers.

WATCH THE VIDEO AND SUBSCRIBE ON RUMBLE

Takings

The growerscomplaint states a claim for an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

(1) The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: [N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Lets start with the Takings Clause. As the court quotes, the Fifth Amendment says quite clearly:

… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment V

This cannot be a taking under the Fifth Amendment because the property wasnt taken for public use. The law specifically granted an easement to a limited list of private organizations, specifically labor unions.

The regulation mandates that agricultural employers allow union organizers onto their property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Since the property wasnt taken, it still remains the property of the growers, and since the regulation did not designate it for public use, this is not a Fifth Amendment taking. And this nonsense that somehow the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution didnt apply to the states until the Fourteenth Amendment, is just another example of the incredibly flawed Incorporation Doctrine, which I debunked in my article The Incorporation Doctrine. While the court doesnt seem to recognize it, what we have here, in their own words, is not a taking, but a deprivation of property without due process.

A different standard applies when the government, rather than appropriating private property for itself or a third party, instead imposes regulations restricting an owners ability to use his own property.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

The court is correct; a different standard applies when governments take control of property, especially for third parties. That makes this a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not because of some invented incorporation doctrine, but because its the state depriving the growers of the enjoyment of their property, not as punishment for the growers wrongdoing, but for the advantage of an ally of the Democratic Party which controls the government of California.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; 

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV

The court even used a previous opinion in Kaiser Aetna v. United States as evidence that denying the growers the right to exclude is to deny them a fundamental element of property rights.

The right to exclude is a fundamental element of the property right.” Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 179–180. …

The Court declines to adopt the theory that the access regulation merely regulates, and does not appropriate, the growersright to exclude. The right to exclude is not an empty formality that can be modified at the governments pleasure.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

If that were all, I probably wouldnt have written an entire article, but then the court asked what, to me, is a very interesting question.

What Comes Next?

The Boards fear that treating the access regulation as a per se physical taking will endanger a host of state and federal government activities involving entry onto private property is unfounded.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

One of the concerns that Californias Agricultural Labor Relations Board brought up was the concern that finding their regulations a taking would impact other state and federal activities. The court says these concerns are unfounded. I, on the other hand, find them quite compelling

First, the Courts holding does nothing to efface the distinction between trespass and takings. The Courts precedents make clear that isolated physical invasions, not undertaken pursuant to a granted right of access, are properly assessed as individual torts rather than appropriations of a property right.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

The court is correct. There is a simple distinction between trespass and takings. I have seen nothing in this opinion that would change that.

Second, many government-authorized physical invasions will not amount to takings because they are consistent with longstanding background restrictions on property rights, including traditional common law privileges to access private property.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Heres the rub: If the government unilaterally granting an easement, a physical invasion onto private property, is a taking under Cedar Point Nursery, why is it not under other regulations? Im sure most Americans would find it distasteful for businesses to deny access to people for reasons we dont agree with. However, part of living in a free country is allowing people to do and say things we find distasteful until they cause someone actual harm. So if the government cannot grant labor unions access to agricultural businesses, why can it grant access based on race, sex, or physical disability? Why did the same court that said the State of California could not infringe on the right to exclude against labor unions, deny to hear a case that let stand an opinion that schools could grant boys access to the girlsbathrooms and locker rooms? (I will be covering the case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board in an upcoming article.) And what about those regulations granting government actors access to private property without a warrant? If the government demands you obtain their permission, then requires you to give up the right to exclude as part of that process; is that not a deprivation of property? If governments cannot grant access to third parties, how can they grant it to themselves? Especially when such access is a direct violation of the supreme law of the land?

The answer to these questions is quite clear. The court has assumed the authority to apply the law based solely on their own opinion and nothing else.

Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan for the Dissent

Interestingly enough, the dissent pointed out the flaw in the plaintiffs claim that Californias regulation is a taking.

Does the regulation physically appropriate the employersproperty? If so, there is no need to look further; the Government must pay the employers just compensation.”

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

I agree; the question of a taking has to do with actually taking property.

TAKING, noun The act of gaining possession; a seizing; seizure; apprehension.

Websters 1828 Dictionary

Since the California regulation did not gain possession of the property, does that mean the dissent was correct, and the court should have found for the State of California? Again, this cannot be a taking because nothing was taken. As Justice Breyer points out:

The Court holds that the provisions access to organizers” requirement amounts to a physical appropriation of property. In its view, virtually every government-authorized invasion is an appropriation.” But this regulation does not appropriate” anything; it regulates the employersright to exclude others.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

As Ive already said, and the court has noted previously, granting access to private property is a deprivation of that property. So, wherein the Constitution of California or the United States is government given the authority to regulate property?

The answer is: Nowhere.

REGULATE, verb transitive To subject to rules or restrictions;

Websters 1828 Dictionary

Since the power to regulate is the power to restrict, is it not also the power to deprive?

DEPRIVE, verb transitive To hinder from possessing or enjoying;

Websters 1828 Dictionary

Therefore, when government regulates property, placing restrictions upon your use of it, they are hindering you from possessing or enjoying it. So whenever any government regulates your property without due process, they are depriving you of it in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

due process, An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.

The Free Legal Dictionary

That means all the arguments of the court, both in favor and dissent, about the temporary or limited nature of the regulation are moot. The Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land, specifically prohibits governments from depriving you of your property without following due process and ensuring your rights as an individual are protected.

Once again, we have a federal court offering the right conclusion for a very wrong reason. Like the bitter medicine hidden in candy, this case is not the vindication of property rights many seem to be touting. Instead, its another nail in the coffin of the rule of law. As one more court places itself above the law they have sworn to uphold, America ceases to be a republic and moves ever closer to an oligarchy that closely resembles the tyrant we declared independence from back in 1776.

Paul Engel

Author and speaker Paul Engel has spent more than 20 years studying and teaching about both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. That experience helps Paul explain difficult concepts in a way most people can understand. As one manager described, “Paul can take the most complex idea and explain it in a way my grandmother can understand.” Freely admitting that he “learned more about our Constitution from School House Rock (a Saturday morning cartoon) than in 12 years of school,” he says that anyone can be a constitutional scholar. Since 2014 I have been helping everyday Americans read and study the Constitution of their country and teaching the rising generation to be free. Using news and current events as a springboard, I explain the Constitution and encourage others to stand up and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves, their children, and the nation.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.

Who Is Really At the Helm in the White House?

Who Is Really At the Helm in the White House?

If we choose to ignore the evidence, or to merely grumble about his performance, then Biden and his cohorts will proceed unhindered with their agenda. We need to take a close look at his exploits and see what patterns are formed. Then, let’s take it a step further and ask who might be coaching Joe. Knowing the enemy is the first step toward defeating that enemy…

America’s Uniqueness Starts and Ends with the US Constitution

America’s Uniqueness Starts and Ends with the US Constitution

We the People, after creating this Frankenstein monster of a government and setting it loose on an unsuspecting world, now cower in fear of our creation, unwilling to stand and defend even our own selves against it. Why did the framers of this union create this Constitution the way they did? What was the purpose that We the People had in mind when we ordained and established it?

What to Expect if the Tyranny in Australia Hits Home

What to Expect if the Tyranny in Australia Hits Home

Since August, Australians cannot go out of their homes for longer than an hour to socialize or shop. We are witnessing the extreme government tyranny that can take over a once-free society and the speed with which it can happen. It’s a snapshot of what could be coming to the United States of America and other freedom-loving countries, and we’d better start paying attention…

This Den of Thieves is Full of Corrupted Government Officials

This Den of Thieves is Full of Corrupted Government Officials

If you’re wondering what affiliations are connected with the CDC through partnerships of Corporations, Foundations & Organizations, look no further, you will see a pattern emerge, and why the push for vaccinations is everywhere we go, there are so many groups doing business with the CDC. Is the CDC playing global political and military chess with the nation and the world…

Sure, Bin Laden is Bad, But Those Filthy MAGA People

Sure, Bin Laden is Bad, But Those Filthy MAGA People

Bush invoked January 6th in his comments on the hallowed ground of Shanksville during the 9/11 ceremonies. In the flight path of the downed airliner, Bush made the following statement: ‘’Violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home,” “are children of the same foul spirit.” What Bush said is simply the talking points of the establishment…

Covid-19, Social Standing, and the New World Order

Covid-19, Social Standing, and the New World Order

A government that can force people to take medical treatments against their wishes can do whatever it wants, and the fact that Joe Biden’s order is unconstitutional will not stop tens of millions of Americans from being forced to get vaccinated against their will, in order to continue supporting their families. By the time the Supreme Court shoots this order down (assuming they do), the damage will already be done…

COVID Q & A with Dr. Peter McCullough, #3

COVID Q & A with Dr. Peter McCullough, #3

We have had no side effects that we are aware of from the vaccine. Does this mean we are free from future side-effects? Should we forego any boosters? Did the vaccine destroy our natural immunity? Should I be more concerned about getting the virus or future variants? How accurate is the VAERS data? Join us on the Voice of a Nation for our third COVID Q & A with Dr. Peter McCullough…

The Unholy Alliance Between Big Pharma’s Vaccines and Drugs and the FDA

The Unholy Alliance Between Big Pharma’s Vaccines and Drugs and the FDA

One MD remarked on the day of the sham approval, Do they actually think that with a stroke of the pen—like a magic wand—“approval” suddenly occurs? Nothing the FDA, pharma, or otherwise says or do is a substitute for 10-12 years of research and development of a biologic. But, sadly, most of the world will believe so. The FDA increasingly fast-tracks expensive drugs and vaccines with significant side effects and unproven health benefits. According to FDA’s own employees, drug company payments bias regulators, with “an inclination toward approval.”

Spreading Hate and Racial Division Since 2009

Spreading Hate and Racial Division Since 2009

Indeed there are extremists here in this country that we need to be concerned with. They are the career politicians who stay in office for decades, an ‘extreme’ length of time for anyone to hold political office. And Barack Obama is an extremist. After all, he wants to “fundamentally transform” the United States…

Header

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

 

Here we take on the challenges of our generation so that we can preserve future generations.

iHeartRadio

The APPS are free; the mission is priceless!

Free APP

Podcast Networks

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Tunein
iHeart
Stitcher

Subscribe and Listen on Your Favorite APP

Our Columnists and Show Hosts

Evacuating Americans & fully-vetted Afghan's at Risk - Help Us!

Apple Podcasts

Empowering and mentoring conservative trailblazers from Generation Z to win!

Apple Podcasts

Turning Point Action is Recruiting Precinct Chairs - Become a Grassroots Warrior Today!

Apple Podcasts

URGENT - KEEP NINE
Please join us to protect the Supreme Court:
Sign the Petition!

Apple Podcasts

The LATINO USA EXIT from the Democrat Party, click for details...

Apple Podcasts

Fighting corporate censorship and ensuring voter integrity...

Apple Podcasts

Support wounded and fallen police officers. The Wounded Blue.

Apple Podcasts
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap