|
|
TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY Restricting someone's use of his own property is another way of stealing it. by F.R. Duplantier The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution not only protects us against double jeopardy and self- incrimination; it also prohibits the confiscation of our property by the Federal Government without proper compensation. Yet, today, Americans routinely find their property devalued by governmental edicts restricting their use of it -- or even taken from them altogether in the interest of some so-called common good. The Wilderness Act of 1964, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and more recently the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts have all infringed on the private property rights of Americans. The Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency are just a few of the federal regulatory agencies that seek to dictate how we dispose of our own private property. The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." But no compensation is forthcoming to the thousands of farmers, ranchers, loggers, and other hard-working Americans who have had the use of their property so severely restricted that they are no longer able to make a living from it -- all in the so-called public interest of certain federally favored flora and fauna. Federal judges and regulatory agents also disregard the Eighth Amendment, which is meant to protect us against unreasonable fines and punishments. Take the case of Florida retiree Ocie Mills. Back in 1989 Mills was sentenced to 21 months in prison and fined $5,000 after being convicted -- under provisions of the Clean Water Act -- of four felony counts of knowingly discharging fill material in wetlands, one misdemeanor count for willfully discharging fill material in wetlands, and one misdemeanor count of dredging a canal in navigable waters. Did the punishment fit the crime? Let's look at the facts. The "wetlands" in question were really two subdivision lots that belonged to Ocie Mills, and the fill material with which Ocie hoped to level his property was a non-toxic substance better known as dirt. The so-called "navigable waters" were nothing more than a drainage ditch between the two lots. The Eighth Amendment states that "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Ah, but what is "excessive"? What is "cruel and unusual"? And who gets to decide? In Ocie Mills's case, it was U.S. District Judge Winston Arnow. Judge Arnow evidently believed that nearly two years in prison was an appropriate punishment to mete out to someone who had the temerity to clean out a mosquito-infested drainage ditch and spread some dirt on his own property. Behind The Headlines is produced by America's Future Inc., a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to the preservation of our free-enterprise system and our constitutional form of government, with editorial offices at 7800 Bonhomme, St. Louis MO 63105. Phone: 314-725-6003. FAX: 314-721-3373. 74047.2677 @ compuserve.com . Editorial Director: F.R. Duplantier. Contributions to America's Future Inc. are tax-deductible by U.S. Treasury ruling. All contributors of $10 or more will, upon request, receive a one-year subscription to America's Future newsletter. Remember: America's Future depends on you! |
|
| "Serving Destin, Ft. Walton Beach, Panama City, Pensacola, Crestview, Eglin AFB, Hurlburt Field and all points in-between..."
|
