Why Money is Property, By Charles Taylor (Florida)

There was a disturbing comment made by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in a court case, whom we thought would have got free under Trump from its previous Leftist collectivist mind set, that money does not qualify as "property" under constitutional definitions. This stance is used to justify the government's ability to seize money from individuals or businesses without violating property rights, as exemplified by a case where $50,000 was confiscated from a small business.

The government's position challenges the traditional understanding of property rights, raising concerns about the erosion of constitutional protections. It suggests that if money isn't property, individuals have less legal recourse to contest seizures, potentially expanding government power over personal finances.

This claim to the broader practice of civil asset forfeiture, is where the government can take assets (including cash) without necessarily proving a crime was committed.

So, why is money property? Money is a form of property because it represents an individual's labour, resources, and economic rights, deserving the same legal protections as tangible assets. Historically, money—whether in the form of coins, paper currency, or digital balances—has been treated as personal property in common law and legal systems worldwide. For example, the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protects against the taking of "private property" without just compensation, and courts have long included money in this category.

Property is broadly defined as anything of value that an individual can own, control, or exchange. Money fits this definition as a tangible (or digital) asset acquired through effort or trade. Money serves as a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account—all characteristics of property. It embodies the labour or goods an individual has produced, converted into a universally accepted form. For instance, if someone earns $50,000 through work, that money represents their time, skill, and energy—akin to how a house represents invested resources. Denying money's status as property undermines the economic rights tied to personal effort.

Individuals exercise ownership over money in the same way they do over physical goods: they can save it, spend it, invest it, or bequeath it. This control mirrors the rights associated with property like land or vehicles. When the government seizes money without due process, it effectively takes something an individual owns, contradicting the notion that it isn't property. Philosophers like John Locke argued that property stems from an individual's labour mixed with resources. Money, as a distilled representation of labour and trade, aligns with this view. To claim it isn't property dismisses the foundational link between work and ownership.

If money isn't property, then the fruits of one's labour lose their protected status, weakening the moral basis of a free society. The DOJ's claim that "money is not necessarily "property" for constitutional purposes" appears to rely on a narrow, semantic distinction, possibly tied to its status as a government-issued instrument. However, this ignores the reality that money, once earned or possessed, becomes an individual's asset, not the state's. If money isn't property, why does the government tax it as income or treat it as an estate in inheritance laws? Its consistent recognition as an owned asset in other contexts undermines the DOJ's position.

Recognising money as property ensures accountability and limits arbitrary seizures, protecting citizens from overreach. If money lacks this status, the government could justify taking any amount without justification, destabilising economic security and trust. Money is property because it encapsulates an individual's economic agency, is legally and practically treated as an owned asset, and aligns with foundational principles of ownership. The government's attempt to redefine it otherwise threatens personal liberty and contradicts both reason and tradition.

It is surprising to see this issue being raised under the Trump administration which is generally pro-capitalism and free enterprise.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-02-28-the-government-says-money-isnt-property.html

The DOJ argued in a Maryland case that money is not property, justifying the confiscation of $50,000 from small business owner Chuck Saine. This argument, if upheld, could erode constitutional protections for private property and due process.

Saine, owner of C.S. Lawn & Landscaping, faced a $50,000 liability in an administrative trial where the prosecutor and judge were from the same federal agency. The Institute for Justice (I.J.) argued that this setup violated Saine's right to a fair trial.

The DOJ's argument is based on three claims: the government creates money and thus individuals cannot own it, the government's power to tax means individuals do not truly own money, and the Constitution's General Welfare Clause allows for such seizures. These claims are controversial and challenge the traditional understanding of property rights.

The case goes beyond the immediate financial impact, raising concerns about the sanctity of property rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. It draws parallels to the Legal Tender Cases but extends much further, potentially undermining the principles that the Founding Fathers sought to protect.

If the DOJ's argument is accepted, it could lead to significant government overreach, allowing for the seizure of personal assets without due process. The case's outcome in federal court will have broad implications for property rights and due process in the United States, emphasizing the need for vigilance in defending constitutional rights.

In a stunning and deeply troubling legal argument, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has asserted that money is not property, thereby justifying the confiscation of $50,000 from a small business owner in Maryland. This Orwellian reasoning, if upheld, could set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of private property rights and due process protections enshrined in the Constitution.

The case centers on Chuck Saine, the owner of C.S. Lawn & Landscaping, a small business he has operated for over 40 years. The federal government sought to impose a $50,000 liability on Saine's business through an administrative trial where both the prosecutor and judge were employees of the same federal agency. The Institute for Justice (I.J.), a public interest law firm representing Saine, argued that such a proceeding violated his right to a fair trial before an impartial judge and jury.

In response, the DOJ made an astonishing claim: money is not property, and therefore, confiscating it does not infringe on Saine's constitutional rights.

The DOJ's three rationales: A threat to property rights

The DOJ's argument hinges on three rationales, all packed into a single footnote in their legal brief:

1.The government creates money, so you can't own it. The DOJ claims that since the government creates fiat currency, individuals cannot truly "own" it. This reasoning is not only legally dubious but also philosophically alarming. If the government can unilaterally decide what constitutes property, it undermines the very foundation of private ownership.

2.The government can tax money, so you don't own it. The DOJ argues that because the government has the power to tax, money is inherently subject to government claims. This logic conflates taxation—a legitimate, albeit often excessive, government function—with outright confiscation without due process.

3.The Constitution allows spending for the "general welfare. "The DOJ cites the Constitution's General Welfare Clause to justify its actions. However, this clause was never intended to grant the government unchecked power to seize private assets. The Founding Fathers explicitly sought to limit government overreach, not enable it.

Historical context: A slippery slope

This case is not just about $50,000; it's about the principle of property rights. Historically, the right to private property has been a cornerstone of individual liberty. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause explicitly states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Similarly, the Due Process Clause guarantees that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

The DOJ's argument harkens back to the Legal Tender Cases of the 19th century, where the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's power to issue paper currency as legal tender. However, those cases did not strip individuals of their property rights. Instead, they addressed the practicalities of a national currency system. The DOJ's current argument goes far beyond that, suggesting that money is not property at all—a claim that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.

A government unbound

If the DOJ's argument prevails, the implications are dire. If money is not property, what stops the government from seizing your savings, your paycheck, or your retirement fund without due process? This reasoning could open the floodgates to unchecked government overreach, turning the United States into a nation where property rights are no longer sacrosanct.

As Rob Johnson, a lawyer who frequently sues the government, aptly noted, "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."

What's next?

A federal court will soon decide whether to uphold Saine's right to a trial before an impartial judge and jury. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for property rights and due process in America.

For now, this case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance in defending our constitutional rights. The government's argument is not just a legal misstep; it is a philosophical assault on the very idea of private property.

People must stand firm in defense of property rights and due process. The government's power is not unlimited, and its ability to confiscate your hard-earned money is not absolute. Money is property, and property is liberty."