US Gov't Claims Your CASH Doesn’t Even Belong To You

P. Gardner Goldsmith | February 4, 2025
DONATE
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

Through the centuries, various forms of a “protection racket” swindle have been pushed.

From the British “Enclosure Movement” that gained strength as the royal peerage system collapsed -- a series of Parliamentary Acts that literally seized land from centuries-established family farms and common areas and handed them to friends of Parliament – to “civil asset forfeiture” committed by government against drug users or sellers (and, in some cases, against people merely accused of the crimes, and never convicted), to so-called “Red Flag” statutes that flout half of the Bill of Rights, all the way to the political seizure of land property that vultures call “eminent domain,” with government acting as the thieves they are, as they claim they rob us for “our” protection.

And now, we see what might be the newest and most absurd manifestation of that perversity.

Related: South Dakota Farmers Fight 'Carbon Capture' Land Grabs of Their Homes | MRCTV

Attorney/journalist Rob Johnson reports for Reason that the US Department of so-called “Justice” recently argued in court that its seizure of $50,000 from a small business owner was not property seizure, because, get this… all cash really belongs to the government.

“This was a new one: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that confiscating $50,000 from a small business did not infringe the business' right to private property because money is not property. “

As sagacious folks like Mr. Johnson quickly learn, the players in government will redefine virtually anything, claiming that their attacks are committed to promote the “general welfare” – a term which they also will define.

“‘Money is not necessarily 'property' for constitutional purposes,’ the government's brief declared—putting the very idea of property in square quotes. Reading at my desk, I practically fell out of my chair. 

The DOJ gave three rationales for the argument, all packed into a doorstopper of a footnote: (1) the government creates money, so you can't own it; (2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and (3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the ‘general welfare.’"

Ahh, yes, that amorphous and malleable term “general welfare.”

It’s a clause in the US Constitution offering the Founders’ rationale for the specific, enumerated powers they claimed for the federal government, and, the term does not give the feds omnipotence.

In fact, just like the terms “public health” and “national security,” the term “general welfare” does not stand up to logical scrutiny.

Welfare is subjective – a personal assessment for each individual to measure. By replacing personal welfare with the term “general” welfare, politicians aim to replace our individual personhood, our individual sovereignty, with a collectivist, political “assessment and decision-making” command paradigm. For any reason, under any pretense, with virtually any contrivance, they negate (or try to negate) the individual in favor of what the politicians determine is good for you.

And, by doing so, they attack you and your rights.

It’s a similar form of “enslaving you and taking from you, for your own good,” and it brings us back to this contemporary case of Biden’s DOJ.

Reason’s Johnson writes:

“Whose money, specifically, was the government saying wasn't property? That of Chuck Saine, the owner of C.S. Lawn & Landscaping, a small landscaping business outside Annapolis, Maryland, which he has operated for over 40 years. 

Saine became a client of the Institute for Justice (I.J.), a public interest law firm, when the federal government sought to impose over $50,000 in liability on his business through a ‘trial’ held deep inside the bowls of a federal administrative agency. At said trial, both the prosecutor and the judge were employed by the same federal agency.”

So much for due process, the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments….

“I.J. sued, arguing that before the government can impose that kind of liability, it has to provide a real trial before a real judge and jury. The specifics of what the government claims Saine did wrong (in short: arcane labor law) are beside the point. If the government wants to confiscate over $50,000 from your business, you must have the chance to argue your defense to an impartial judge and jury—not an agency bureaucrat.”

Remember that, next time you read about a local “zoning law” that forces you to “get permission” to do something, without you taking any action that might have harmed another person. 

“Now, the DOJ argued that Saine has no right to a real judge and jury because the government was only trying to take his money, not his property. They claimed that fiat currency is a legal fiction that the government can as easily destroy as create. Lest anyone miss the implicit connection to the history of the gold standard, DOJ's footnote prominently cited the Legal Tender Cases—where the Supreme Court upheld laws forcing people to accept paper currency, rather than gold and silver, as payment for debts. 

This was an argument for taking Saine's $50,000 without a trial before a real judge and jury, but the same argument could be used to justify all manner of mischief. If your money is not your property, what is to stop the government from just seizing all of it tomorrow—for any reason it gives?”

Indeed.

And Johnson concludes:

“Before you run out and trade your USD for meme coins, let me reassure you: DOJ's argument is wrong. The Due Process Clause applies to "life, liberty, or property," and the Supreme Court has repeatedly applied that Clause to money. It follows that, since money is neither life nor liberty, it must be property. 

To be sure, DOJ's arguments have force as a philosophical critique of government, taxation, and the monetary system. They may also highlight legitimate reasons to hold part of your wealth in gold or (for some) cryptocurrency. But ‘for constitutional purposes,’ to borrow a phrase from the DOJ, the arguments are a flop. 

A federal court will soon decide whether to uphold Saine's right to a trial before an impartial judge and jury. Hopefully, the court will agree: Money is property, and an agency bureaucrat is not an impartial judge.”

This case exemplifies the invalid and immoral concept that the polis can rule over individuals and take their property, even as its agents claim that such rule is for the “general welfare.”

There only is individual welfare, based on freedom and the principle of individual choice.

 

Follow MRCTV on X!