Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: How governments might be kept from economic intervention
Message-ID: <1757@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1757
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 09:44:06 EDT
References: <9563@ucbvax.ARPA> <1106@umcp-cs.UUCP> <10166@ucbvax.ARPA> <245@pedsgd.UUCP> <10203@ucbvax.ARPA> <1724@psuvax1.UUCP> <3462@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 41

> 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

Two remarks.  

There are three interpretations of benefitting EVERYBODY.
A narrow one: if one person claims that something is not benefiting him,
then this thing is not benefiting everybody.  A broad one: if one one
show direct or INDIRECT benefits for everybody.  Yet broader: if one
can show direct, indirect and POTENTIAL benefits for everybody.  I can
personally leave with the third interpretation, JoSH prefers presumably
something between first and the second.

Secondly, the due process of law is also subject of interpretation.