Each day I go to work, I am trading my time and labor for money. That money then becomes mine. I earned it. That’s the system we have in America. It seems to work pretty good for most people.
How then does the Ninth Circuit Court come to the conclusion that money is not personal property? Ilya Shapiro at Cato@Liberty writes:
When Daniel and Andrea McClung applied for a permit to build a small business on their property in Sumner, Washington, the city charged them nearly $50,000 to pay for improvements to the city’s entire storm drainage system.
The McClungs sued the city under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, whose Takings Clause prohibits the government from “taking” private property for public use without just compensation. They argue that the city cannot force them to pay fees for off-site pipes absent proof that their development would have a specific detrimental effect on the existing drainage system–and without any evidence that the impact was worth $50,000.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the city, reasoning that money is not property (so there could be no unconstitutional taking) and that because the fees were imposed by ordinance (so the city’s determination that the pipes needed upgrading was justification enough for the fees). The McClungs have now asked the Supreme Court to review their case.
It baffles my mind how a crew of supposed Constitutional minded judges can look at the concept of currency and not see it as personal property.
For example, if I went to my job and instead of dollars, I asked to be paid in Mountain Dew, wouldn’t those Mountain Dew be my property. According to the Ninth Circuit Court, no. (Not that the government hasn’t taken enough Mountain Dew from me already.)
I hope the Supreme Court chooses to review this case. I look forward to hearing the decision.
Photo Credit:
Pingback: All American Blogger » The 10 Most Outrageous Political Terrorists of the Right Wing Mob
Pingback: tomllewis - The 10 Most Outrageous Political Terrorists of the Right Wing Mob