Whatever one might think of Franklin Roosevelt’s reforms, one New Deal program stands out as especially repugnant to the bedrock constitutional principles that protect individual rights in America. Critics of the New Deal appropriately take issue with a whole host of problems resulting from the expansion of federal powers, and the gutting of constitutional protections for economic liberties and property rights. But perhaps no case better highlights the constitutionally-antagonistic nature of progressive-era social engineering than the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1937, which authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture to confiscate a portion of each farmer’s annual raisin crop for the purpose of stabilizing the national price of raisins.
Today—after 78 years of legalized robbery—the Supreme Court has ruled this regime unconstitutional. By a 8-1 vote, the High Court struck down the raisin confiscation program—holding that government cannot take private property without paying the owner just compensation. But, remarkably, until now, the Department of Agriculture had successfully defended the regime on the notion that state and federal authorities may decide—through legislation—the terms on which an individual may engage in commercial conduct.
Of course, there is something terribly wrong with government telling citizens that they must waive constitutional protections in order to enjoy the basic liberty to work a job or to start a business. As the Supreme Court recognized in today’s decision, lawmakers could manipulate our constitutional rights out of existence if they were permitted to force citizens into a false choice between the right to engage in free enterprise and the constitutional right to be free from uncompensated government takings. Indeed, it’s simply wrong for lawmakers to tell us that we must sacrifice constitutional protections on the guillotine in order to obtain permission to provide for ourselves and our families. Such a regime would improperly allow government to treat our right to earn an honest living—i.e. to engage in basic economic conduct vital to our very survival—as a mere privilege.
The problem is that, since the New Deal, lawmakers have all too often adopted the myopic view that all rights—especially economic freedoms and property rights—are allowed at the discretion of the State. But as the Supreme Court affirmed today, lawmakers are not our overlords; they cannot force us to choose between economic liberties and property rights. As the framers of the Constitution recognized, our constitutional rights are sacrosanct precisely because they guarantee natural and inalienable rights. That is as true today as it was in 1787.
It is flat-out wrong to confiscate someone’s property without paying for what you are taking. That is true regardless of whether the authorities demand money, land, our anything else of value. In this case the government sought to justify confiscation of raisins. If that were allowed, lawmakers could just as well compel small businesses to handover other crops, commodities and inventory—even merchandise from their shelves.
So today’s victory was important for all who believe in free enterprise and the importance of private property rights. As the NFIB Small Business Legal Center argued before the Supreme Court, it’s important to draw a definitive line in the sand. And today’s decision sends an unmistakably clear message lawmakers: under no circumstance may you rob Peter to pay Paul.
