Our ideas about the ownership of the earth’s surface have been the cause of more wars than our struggles over God. Fortunately we have grown from settling arguments with swords and arrows. In these modern times those battles are often fought in the courts and in legislative chambers. Property owners fighting the public will in a battle of rights versus what is right is a theme we know all too well in El Paso.
The advent of email has made the spread of propaganda very efficient. A few mindless clicks and seconds later your terribly reasoned words are spread to a wide audience. The ballot initiatives that Texans are to vote on next week have become the fodder for these electronic intrusions. I’m aghast at the lack of analytical thinking and understanding of man’s natural law exhibited in these emails from people who have attracted my admiration in the past. I guess it’s getting harder to spot Republican these days; especially among those in the collegiate professor class.
These emails almost always contain a reference to a “proposition 11” that is, from what I understand, the eleventh initiative on the ballot. It has been described in these numerous emails as a law that would “put an end to the continued abuse of eminent domain.” I was not aware that the 5th Amendment of our constitution was being abused. Of course, their wording makes little sense when a person truly understands what they are trying to communicate. They are actually trying to tell us that the 5th Amendment is being used as it was intended and they are upset by that practice. It is humorous how their argument falls apart by simply stating what they mean in a coherent manner.
I find the final clause of the 5th Amendment to be a rather useful one. Eminent Domain is a protection of the people from those who would infringe on others through the manipulation of land. We as free people should be free of tyrannical and selfish use of land. Eminent domain allows the people through their representative government to purchase land from those whose purpose with the land will offend the public good.
I have found that the manipulation of language has served to misinform the public of what actually takes place when the government uses eminent domain. Those who wish to abuse land in the name of property rights will describe the government as “taking their land” when eminent domain is used. I would describe the government as defending the land, instead. Having the government offer ASARCO payment for their deeply polluted land using eminent domain would not be taking the land, but defending that land.
If the electorate were to vote to approve this proposition, they would rid themselves of any means of defending our lands from those who would damage it either aesthetically or environmentally. I am still not of a mind to think that the Supreme Court of the United States of America would appreciate a state making laws in violation of the constitution. That issue should be the secondary issue when examining this proposition.
I hope to remind each of you that there must be some defense to the offensive and abusive use of our lands. All land here is truly ours as a community and the founding fathers intended on that being so by the inclusion of the eminent domain clause in the 5th amendment. If there was ever a duty to protect anyone’s rights, it would be the duty to preserve property for the good of all the community. Let us hope that you and our neighbors make the right decision on “proposition 11” inside the voting booth.
You may reach Sissy Dogood at sissydogood@gmail.com
