The Constitution…Be Careful What You Wish For
I've discussed before the trouble with relying on the Constitution when making arguments for this or that policy, particularly among libertarians. There is a great irony in seeing those that deride "statism" stand side-by-side with a document that created one of the largest, most overreaching states in the history of the world.Before the Constitution, the "united" states were loosely affiliated under the Articles of Confederation, but there was no overriding federal authority until the Constitutional Convention formed the federal government in 1787. I see no need to delve into history further; if you so choose there are many avenues by which one can educate themselves on U.S. history.During the recent standoff at the Bundy Ranch which I discussed earlier this week, many of his supporters were giving reverence to the Constitution in their defense of Bundy. Cliven Bundy himself has referenced the Constitution in his defense, stating to Fox News:
This is a lot bigger deal than just my cows…It's a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution.
So what's the problem? I'm all for freedom and liberty; heck, I'm all for encouraging the Federal Government to, at the very least, limit itself to the powers clearly defined in the Constitution. Powers which are far too broad, but I digress….The problem is that the Constitution has ushered in many of the very issues which Cliven Bundy and his supporters are battling with right now. The Constitution not only created the federal government; it also allowed that very same federal government to own and acquire land for public use. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution allows the federal government to own land for a variety of uses (though of course, "protecting tortoises" was not one of them.) Additionally, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution essentially codifies the federal government's right to use eminent domain to seize formerly private property for its own use. Most of the fifth amendment sounds just peachy until you get to the end (emphasis mine):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There's always a catch! The "just compensation" clause essentially means that the government does have the power to take private property, as long as it justifies some sort of "public use" and compensates the owner with whatever it deems to be "just compensation." This is the concept of eminent domain, and it essentially means that private property doesn't really exist in this country. You may own your property and have a title for it, but when the government can claim the power to take it from you by force, is it really even your property?There are reasonable arguments Cliven Bundy could make to the use of the "public" land where his cattle have been grazing. He could make the case that the land should be unowned and therefore he has the right to use them in lieu of an actual owner. He could even homestead areas of the land himself and make an argument that by doing so he has become the rightful owner. These would be arguments based on principle, first and foremost.The Constitution is not a principle. It is simply a document by which the entity known as the U.S. government spells out its powers. It's true that this entity has in no way limited its power to those in the Constitution, and it's a worthy enough cause to point this out when appropriate.Libertarians in particular need to stay focused on principles. If one has no principles and simply keeps pointing to this document that the government itself could care less for, they will be one "hey, what about this clause" away from losing every single argument.For more on how land disputes could be resolved in a truly private property society, check out my interview with Timothy Terrell from the Lions of Liberty Podcast. Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!
Subscribe to our weekly digest!
