This is definitely a constitutional issue. Many arguments can be made that property taxes deny our basic rights.
First Amendment – Compelled Financial Speech
- Transgression: Property taxes compel property owners to support government services financially, regardless of their usage or personal beliefs, thereby constituting compelled financial speech.
- Supporting Cases:
- Janus v. AFSCME (2018): The Court held that non-consenting employees could not be forced to support union speech financially, laying groundwork for arguing against compelled property tax payments.
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943): Reinforces the position that no state can convert a liberty (like property ownership) into a taxable right, underscoring the unconstitutionality of forced financial contributions for property ownership.
Fourth Amendment – Unreasonable Seizure
- Transgression: Foreclosure as a result of unpaid property taxes constitutes an unreasonable seizure of property, which goes beyond the bounds of acceptable punitive action.
- Supporting Cases:
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. v. Chicago (1897): Establishes that property cannot be seized without just compensation, supporting the idea that foreclosure for unpaid property taxes is excessive.
- Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance (1795): An early case affirming fundamental property rights, arguing against uncompensated seizure.
Fifth Amendment – Takings Clause
- Transgression: Property taxes, especially those that result in forced sales or foreclosures, constitute an unlawful taking of property without just compensation.
- Supporting Cases:
- Horne v. Department of Agriculture (2015): Reinforces that government-mandated seizures or contributions of private property, even indirectly, can constitute a taking.
- Kelo v. City of New London (2005) and Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978): Highlight the need for balanced treatment and compensation in takings, emphasizing that property should not be seized through tax schemes without due compensation.
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV (1982): Established that even minor, permanent physical occupations can constitute takings, illustrating that perpetual financial imposition through taxes on property can be seen as such an imposition.
Thirteenth Amendment – Involuntary Servitude
- Transgression: Property taxes create a form of involuntary servitude by compelling property owners to pay indefinitely under threat of asset seizure.
- Supporting Cases:
- Bailey v. Alabama (1911): Held that debt coercion through punitive threats constituted involuntary servitude, which parallels the requirement to pay property taxes indefinitely under penalty of losing one’s property.
- Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895): Addresses the excessive burdens of certain tax forms, suggesting property taxes’ indefinite financial demands are coercive.
Fourteenth Amendment – Due Process and Equal Protection
- Transgression: Property tax systems disproportionately affect lower-income and minority communities, violating the Equal Protection Clause by placing unequal burdens on different groups. Arbitrary assessments also infringe upon due process.
- Supporting Cases:
- San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez (1973): Highlights the disparities in educational funding due to unequal property tax burdens, establishing precedent for the unequal impact of property tax assessments.
- Armstrong v. United States (1960): Emphasizes that it is unconstitutional for only some individuals to bear public burdens, relevant here due to the unfair distribution of property tax impacts.
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916): Discusses direct versus indirect taxation and suggests the need for equity in tax application, which current property tax models lack.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 – Direct Tax Apportionment
- Transgression: Property taxes, as direct taxes on ownership, should be apportioned according to population but currently are not, violating this constitutional requirement.
- Supporting Cases:
- Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895): This landmark case clarifies that direct taxes, including those on property, require apportionment, providing historical grounding for this argument.
Article IV, Section 4 – Guarantee of a Republican Form of Government
- Transgression: The structure of property tax administration violates the Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government. Since CAD boards operate without direct election or public accountability, they undermine the principle of representation foundational to a republic. Taxation decisions made by unelected officials violate the expectation that governmental power should derive from the consent of the governed.
- Supporting Examples:
- Example: Across most regions, citizens have actively petitioned against the unaccountable nature of CAD board appointments. This concern highlights widespread issues with these boards’ detachment from the electorate, resulting in a lack of direct representation and undermining public confidence in their decisions on property tax valuations. The appointment process for CAD boards bypasses direct input from citizens, leading to taxation without representation, which directly contravenes the republican principles guaranteed in the Constitution.
Federal Case Summary
Each constitutional transgression is substantiated by precedent-setting cases:
- Janus v. AFSCME and Murdock v. Pennsylvania argue against compelled contributions under the First Amendment.
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. v. Chicago and Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance fortify Fourth Amendment protections against seizure.
- Horne v. Department of Agriculture, Kelo v. City of New London, and Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York protect against uncompensated takings, supporting Fifth Amendment claims.
- Bailey v. Alabama and Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. support the Thirteenth Amendment argument against coercive taxation practices.
- San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez and Armstrong v. United States confirm Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding due process and equal protection.
- Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. reinforces the need for apportionment under Article I, Section 9.
- Example of CAD board structure supports the republican guarantee clause by demonstrating the unaccountable nature of CAD boards, which lack direct public election.