Right To Property

The American Judiciary does not recognized marijuana as property. If Marijuana is not property what is it?

Maine Constitution Article I. Declaration of Rights. Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/

“The Congress [of the United States] makes the following findings: (1) Individuals enjoy a fundamental right to own and enjoy property which is enshrined in the United States Constitution.” Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarty (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996,Title 22 U.S.C.-6081.

“ ‘The great end for which men entered in society was to secure their property.’ ” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627; 6 S.Ct. 524 (1886).

Property is everything which has an exchangeable value, and the right of property includes the power to dispose of it according to the will of the owner. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 127

….It is, after all, such consumer goods that people work and earn a livelihood in order to acquire. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 91

“property rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.” Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. at 111.

The right to use and enjoy one’s property is a fundamental right protected by both the State and Federal Constitutions, Buskey v Town of Hanover, 1990, 577 A2d 406, 133 NH. 318.

“Private property is held subject to implied condition that its use will not injure or impair public interest.” State v. Lewis , 406 A.2d 886 Me 1979.

“The right to enjoy property … is in truth a ‘personal’ right … [A] fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized.” Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972). Emphasis added.

“[T]he Constitution recognized the right of property… and made no distinction between [this] description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the [State], whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 451, (1857).

One's right to life, liberty, and property, may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 1943.

“Such rights …… do not vanish simply because the power of the state is arrayed against them. Nor are they enjoyed in subjection to mere legislative findings.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 548; 54 S.Ct. 505 (1934).

“The right to acquire, enjoy, and dispose of property is declared in the constitutions of several states to be one of the inalienable rights of man; but this declaration is not held to preclude the legislature of any state from passing laws respecting the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of property.” Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 90, (1890).

[L]egislative authority to abridge [plaintiff’s liberty and ] property rights … can be justified only by exceptional circumstances and, even then, by reasonable regulation only, and that legislative conclusions based on findings of fact are subject to judicial review.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 543; 54 S.Ct. 505, (1934). Emphasis added.

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas

"We think it a settled principle, growing out of the nature of well ordered civil society, that every holder of property, …..holds it under the implied liability that its use may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property nor injurious to the rights of the community. ……. Rights of property, …….are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations established by law as the legislature, under the governing and controlling power vested in them by the Constitution, may think necessary and expedient.” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 147 (1876), > Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 392(1898) citing Commonwealth Massachusetts v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84

And, as to the enjoyment of property, the rule is general that it must be accompanied with such limitations as will not impair the equal enjoyment by others of their property. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas is a maxim of universal application. ….. Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 91 (1890)

This Court has stated that the “prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law reflects the high value, embedded in our constitutional and political history, that we place on a person's right to enjoy what is his, free of governmental interference.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).

This court previous cases “hold that seizures of property are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the meaning of the Amendment has taken place.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 68 (1992). A ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).

This Court has stated that the “prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law reflects the high value, embedded in our constitutional and political history, that we place on a person's right to enjoy what is his, free of governmental interference.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).

This court previous cases “hold that seizures of property are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the meaning of the Amendment has taken place.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 68 (1992). A ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).

One's right to life, liberty, and property, may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 1943.