Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: How governments might be kept from economic intervention
Message-ID: <3462@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 21:01:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3462
Posted: Wed Aug 28 21:01:05 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 07:29:10 EDT
References: <9563@ucbvax.ARPA> <1106@umcp-cs.UUCP> <10166@ucbvax.ARPA> <245@pedsgd.UUCP> <10203@ucbvax.ARPA> <1724@psuvax1.UUCP>
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 29

In article <1724@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes:
>Imagine the following.  The Supreme Court actually defines property as
>the fundamental right.  Can you elaborate, what laws would be deleted?
>Would any taxes (income, property, sales, per capita) remain legal? 
>Zoning regulations?  Eminent domain?
>...
>Piotr Berman

There are two modifications in interpretation which, if taken
together, would do an awful lot of good.  They are (a) the "general
welfare" clause, which is part of the taxing power (Article I, Section
8, para. 1), is currently interpreted to mean  that taxes may be used
to do anything which does anybody any good.  This could be
reinterpreted to mean, that no taxes could be levied except to do
something which benefitted EVERYBODY; ie, special interests need not
apply.  (b) Economic due process: in Amendment 5, "No person shall ...
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
Interpret this to mean that a law which restricts someone's use of
something he owns, is depriving him of some of its value, and that the 
need for such a law must be considerably more compelling before it
is allowed.

The interesting thing to note is that BOTH these interpretations I
advocate were once held by the Supreme Court.  (a) was soon swept
away by a confluence of powerful political and commercial special 
interests in the early 1800's; (b) held up until the 1930's and 
the New Deal.

--JoSH