Website: www.narlo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Carl J. Circo, BA – JD

University of Arkansas

School of Law

Dear Mr. Circo:

Like so many socialists and radical environmentalists that infect our American colleges and even our government at all levels, you advocate full implementation of UN’s Agenda 21 into American Law under the anti-American policies of “social justice” and “environmental protection”, the latter being illegally used to justify and implement the former.  Your bias is amply illustrated by an excerpt from your recent article: “Does Sustainability Require a New Theory of Property Rights?”

“In pursuing these questions, this Article examines the potential conflicts between sustainability theory and property theory. Part II briefly surveys sustainability concepts, both in theory and in practice. It begins by identifying three main theoretical strains: resource conservation; generational justice; and social justice.”

First of all, under the U. S. Constitution, “property” is not a theory.  It is an absolute right and fully protected by the 5th Amendment.  There is no conflict.  As a matter of fact, the Constitution fails if property is not a right.  Here is an excerpt from a treatise by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders, regarding property rights:

“Property “is defined by (Washington) state law. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Our state, and most other states, define property in an extremely broad sense.”

Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.”

Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 409, 348 P.2d 664 (1960) (quoting from Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 355, 235 S.W. 513, 19 A.L.R. 1387 (1921)).

And further, Justice Sanders states:

“While it is up to each state to define property for itself, the right to use one’s property has been universally understood to be a fundamental attribute of real property ownership. Compare Eaton v. Boston, C. and M.R.R., 51 N.H. 504, 511-512 (1872) (“the framers of the Constitution intended to protect property rights which are worth protecting; not mere empty titles . . . among those elements is, fundamentally, the right of use . . . “) and Lord Coke: “to deprive one of the use of his land is depriving him of his land. What is the land but the profits thereof?” See also John M. Groen and Richard M. Stephens, Takings Law, Lucas, and the Growth Management Act, 16 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 1259, at 1266, 1295 (Spring 1993).”

So in reality, if the government comes along and passes radical environmental protection ordinances that substantially reduces the right of use to an owner’s property, that right BECOMES A BARREN RIGHT.  What it does is to reduce property rights to the whim of the “state”, which then becomes superior to constituently protected property rights, thereby rendering the constitution as just so much unused toilet paper. 

Should you advocate such a position, which it appears you do, from the perspective of many, including this writer, you advocate treason.  If you are teaching this unconstitutional environmental idiocy as a professor in one of our American colleges, one could allege that you are a traitor.  We suggest that if you do not like the natural rights, (including property rights) as codified into law in the Supreme Law of American Land, the U. S. Constitution, you find another country to live in, and soon.  It is not your right to advocate changing the constitution to suit your United Nations sponsored “social justice” and “radical environmental protection” bias and policies. 

Way too many brave men and women gave their lives, their limbs and some their minds to preserve, protect and defend our natural rights, as distinctly defined in the Constitution, property rights being the very foundation of all other rights.  You will not by fiat, or any other way, tear down those rights or sully the sacrifice of those men and women by debating the merits of “sustainable theory” vs. property rights.  Property rights are natural rights and a gift from our Creator, no matter what you think or say.  As you will soon find out, there are millions of Americans who will put their money where their mouth is and their solid beliefs of freedom and liberty into action.  It is coming!

Respectfully,

Ron Ewart, President

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS

P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA  98027

425 222-4742 or 1 800 682-7848

(Fax No. 425 222-4743)

Website: www.narlo.org

About these ads