Source: Natural News | VIEW ORIGINAL POST ==>
- The DOJ argued in a Maryland case that money is not property, justifying the confiscation of $50,000 from small business owner Chuck Saine. This argument, if upheld, could erode constitutional protections for private property and due process.
- Saine, owner of C.S. Lawn & Landscaping, faced a $50,000 liability in an administrative trial where the prosecutor and judge were from the same federal agency. The Institute for Justice (I.J.) argued that this setup violated Saine’s right to a fair trial.
- The DOJ’s argument is based on three claims: the government creates money and thus individuals cannot own it, the government’s power to tax means individuals do not truly own money, and the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause allows for such seizures. These claims are controversial and challenge the traditional understanding of property rights.
- The case goes beyond the immediate financial impact, raising concerns about the sanctity of property rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. It draws parallels to the Legal Tender Cases but extends much further, potentially undermining the principles that the Founding Fathers sought to protect.
- If the DOJ’s argument is accepted, it could lead to significant government overreach, allowing for the seizure of personal assets without due process. The case’s outcome in federal court will have broad implications for property rights and due process in the United States, emphasizing the need for vigilance in defending constitutional rights.
In a stunning and deeply troubling legal argument, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has asserted that money is not property, thereby justifying the confiscation of $50,000 from a small business owner in Maryland. This Orwellian reasoning, if upheld, could set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of private property rights and due process protections enshrined in the Constitution.
The case centers on Chuck Saine, the owner of C.S. Lawn & Landscaping, a small business he has operated for over 40 years. The federal government sought to impose a $50,000 liability on Saine’s business through an administrative trial where both the prosecutor and judge were employees of the same federal agency. The Institute for Justice (I.J.), a public interest law firm representing Saine, argued that such a proceeding violated his right to a fair trial before an impartial judge and jury.
In response, the DOJ made an astonishing claim: money is not property, and therefore, confiscating it does not infringe on Saine’s constitutional rights.
The DOJ’s three rationales: A threat to property rights
The DOJ’s argument hinges on three rationales, all packed into a single footnote in their legal brief:
- The government creates money, so you can’t own itThe DOJ claims that since the government creates fiat currency, individuals cannot truly “own” it. This reasoning is not only legally dubious but also philosophically alarming. If the government can unilaterally decide what constitutes property, it undermines the very foundation of private ownership.
- The government can tax money, so you don’t own itThe DOJ argues that because the government has the power to tax, money is inherently subject to government claims. This logic conflates taxation—a legitimate, albeit often excessive, government function—with outright confiscation without due process.
- The Constitution allows spending for the “general welfare”The DOJ cites the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause to justify its actions. However, this clause was never intended to grant the government unchecked power to seize private assets. The Founding Fathers explicitly sought to limit government overreach, not enable it.
Historical context: A slippery slope
This case is not just about $50,000; it’s about the principle of property rights. Historically, the right to private property has been a cornerstone of individual liberty. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause explicitly states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Similarly, the Due Process Clause guarantees that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law.
The DOJ’s argument harkens back to the Legal Tender Cases of the 19th century, where the Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s power to issue paper currency as legal tender. However, those cases did not strip individuals of their property rights. Instead, they addressed the practicalities of a national currency system. The DOJ’s current argument goes far beyond that, suggesting that money is not property at all—a claim that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.
A government unbound
If the DOJ’s argument prevails, the implications are dire. If money is not property, what stops the government from seizing your savings, your paycheck, or your retirement fund without due process? This reasoning could open the floodgates to unchecked government overreach, turning the United States into a nation where property rights are no longer sacrosanct.
As Rob Johnson, a lawyer who frequently sues the government, aptly noted, “Before you run out and trade your USD for meme coins, let me reassure you: DOJ’s argument is wrong. The Due Process Clause applies to ‘life, liberty, or property,’ and the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied that Clause to money. It follows that, since money is neither life nor liberty, it must be property.”
What’s next?
A federal court will soon decide whether to uphold Saine’s right to a trial before an impartial judge and jury. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for property rights and due process in America.
For now, this case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance in defending our constitutional rights. The government’s argument is not just a legal misstep; it is a philosophical assault on the very idea of private property.
People must stand firm in defense of property rights and due process. The government’s power is not unlimited, and its ability to confiscate your hard-earned money is not absolute. Money is property, and property is liberty.
Sources include:
