A long-running dispute between the U.S. Department of Labor and a private company has produced a footnote that has Institute for Justice senior attorney Rob Johnson stumped.
In C.S. Lawn & Landscape v. U.S. Department of Labor, the District Court for the District of Columbia held that "money is not necessarily property for constitutional purposes." According to the court, this is true for several reasons.
The footnote explains that the government creates fiat money, and it also has the power to take some of that money in the form of taxation, which is not considered a deprivation of property.
Moreover, the court argues that “thinking of money as property also makes little sense,” given that the power of the U.S. Congress to spend money was being challenged even though it was supported by the idea of providing for the general welfare, as stated in the Constitution.
If money were considered property, the court continues, this debate would have no basis, given that the agency has a constitutionally mandated function to administer U.S. property.
Johnson said it could set a precedent for seizing money in these types of disputes without a court or judge.
If your money is not your property, what's to stop the government from simply confiscating it tomorrow for any reason it wants? the lawyer wondered.
He concluded that such arguments from the court force us to rethink the current monetary system, focusing on the need to keep at least part of our savings in the form of gold or cryptocurrencies.
