Under all is the Land
Under all is the land. Upon its wise utilization and widely allocated ownership depend the survival and growth of free institutions and of our civilization.
So begins the preamble to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the National Association of Realtors®. This preamble, of course, is not a new statement of principle, but a restatement of one of the founding principles of the United States of America.
On June 12, 1776, the Virginia Constitutional Convention adopted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, which begins with the statement:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
(Emphasis added.) 
The Virginia Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson in his drafting the Declaration of Independence, and by James Madison in his drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution).
The danger of government interference with the free enjoyment of private property rights was, in other words, foreseen from the first moment of the founding of this Nation. And, as I've posted recently on this site, the danger of public infringement of private property rights is growing.
How far is your Supreme Court willing to go in standing up between you and your Government to protect your private property rights? In response to this question, I recommend the excellent article by Ilya Somin, an Associate Professor at George Mason University School of Law, entitled Taking Rights Seriously? the Supreme Court and the "Poor Relation'"of Constitutional Law (PDF), and his more recent blog posting on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Mr. Somin concludes that over the last 25 years, the Supreme Court has begun to take property rights more seriously. The unanswered and unanswerable question is whether this represents an evolution or a fleeting victory in the Court's protection of private property rights. In any case, eternal vigilance is warranted.
