One of the rights recognized by the Constitution in the Pursuit of Happiness. Under this Pursuit comes the right of property ownership. To own property is the reason we go to work each day, that is, to acquire things that will bring happiness and meaning to our existence.
Property can have many classifications but all fall under the terms of real or personal. The term: "property," within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.
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 these 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." Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. see: Spann v. City of Dallas 235 S.W.513
These words of the Supreme Court of Texas are of particular importance in Idaho because the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. The Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further; To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS ."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines;
Property -- The ownership of property implies its use in the prosecution of any legitimate business which is not a nuisance in itself. See: In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623
The United States Supreme Court states:
The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law.
Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the "RIGHT" to acquire, use and dispose of it. See: Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 74
These authorities point out that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it as one chooses..
Where inherent, unalienable, absolute "RIGHTS" are concerned, the police powers can have no effect. The "RIGHT" to own and use property have been described as inherent, unalienable, and absolute. Thus the police power cannot regulate the "RIGHT" to use your property
Where "RIGHTS" secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. See: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
The abrogation of unalienable "RIGHTS" is unconstitutional. If the American Citizen does indeed have these rights, how then can government impose restrictions on your property with zoning and the vast array of other restraints?
Our elected officials are NOT protecting our property rights.