On the recordMay 14, 1997
we, the Congress, are once again asked to reenact Federal housing legislation that is unconstitutionally, philosophically, economically, and practically unsound. Prior to the Constitution-circumventing New Deal policies of the Fed-induced Depression era, such redistributionist policies whereby Government takes money from one citizen to pay the housing costs--or some other cost--of another was forbidden. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, in Calder versus Bull, opined that ``a law that takes property from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to intrust a legislature with such powers.'' Yet, this redistributionary scheme, rather than the exception, has become the rule as well as the rule of law in this 20th century, special interest state. But even setting aside the unconstitutionality of Government's 20th century housing policy for the moment, such redistributionary schemes are philosophically bankrupt as well. A right to housing, as espoused by proponents of this legislation, or a right to more than the fruits of one's own labor, by definition must deprive some other the right to keep the fruit of his or her own labor. Moreover, such a right cannot be a right as it is not enjoyable by all simultaneously. For if each is entitled by right to more than the fruit of one's own labor, one must then ask from where this additional production will come.…
Source
govinfo.gov




