|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Who Will Stand
For Us?
By Kate Burch
Every person who is elected to public office in the United States takes
an oath abide by and defend our Constitution. So, it is
disconcerting, to say the least, to read of two recent cases of serious
affronts to our most important founding document.
Hillary Clinton, so far the leading candidate for the Democratic
presidential nomination, is openly saying that she does not like the
First Amendment, as it is written. She would like to change the
Amendment so as to allow the political class to further regulate and
limit political speech. I do not understand how this idea can be
packaged to make it appeal to people who want a representative
republic, but there you are. She is apparently getting cheers and
applause when she says such things.
Meanwhile, on the Left Coast, a family of raisin farmers has repeatedly
been required by the federally-established “Raisin Administrative
Committee” (sounds so Soviet-era, doesn’t it?) to turn over a large
proportion—as much as 47% one year—of its crop to the government
without compensation. This is so that the government can prop up
the price by controlling supply. The farmers’ compensation is
supposed to accrue to them from the higher prices they can charge for
their produce, made artificially more scarce. Hard to believe,
but true.
This government program is an iteration of such programs that were
started during the New Deal. You may recall reading in your
History classes about the government-ordered slaughter of millions of
hogs during the Great Depression, with the purpose of raising pork
prices despite the fact that millions of people were suffering from
hunger.
The farm family involved, Marvin and Laura Horne, have sued under the
theory that the government acted unconstitutionally in seizing their
property, violating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which states
that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just
compensation.” The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
has been on the side of the government committee and against the
farmers. After several years of back-and-forth, the case is now
being heard by the Supreme Court, and it looks so far like things may
be going in favor of the farmers and against another seizure of
property like we saw in the Kelo v. New London case of 2005. A
ruling in the Hornes’ favor would help to right some prior wrongs and
support the Bill of Rights. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
|
|
|
|
