Tolu Kolawole 
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) in a lawsuit argued that confiscating the money belonging to a small business does not infringe on the business’ right to private property because money is not property
In a recent legal case, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that seizing money from a small business does not violate property rights because, according to the DOJ, money isn’t considered “property” under the Constitution. This argument was made in the context of a civil asset forfeiture case, where the government sought to confiscate $50,000 from a business without providing a jury trial.
This stance is alarming. It suggests that the government views the money in your bank account not as your private property, but as something it can claim ownership over, simply because it issues the currency. This perspective undermines the fundamental principle of private property rights and raises concerns about governmental overreach.
The Government’s Legal Justification
The DOJ’s rationale hinges on the idea that since the government creates and regulates currency, it retains ultimate ownership over it. They argue that because the government has the authority to tax and control the money supply, individuals do not have absolute property rights over their money.
This reasoning is troubling. It implies that the government can seize individuals’ money without due process, as it doesn’t recognize money as private property. Such a viewpoint challenges the protections guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which safeguard individuals from being deprived of property without due process of law.
Historical Context and Implications
The journey to this point has been gradual, marked by significant policy decisions:
- Monopoly on Currency Creation: Governments established exclusive rights to produce legal tender, effectively eliminating alternative forms of currency.
- Fractional Reserve Banking: This system allows banks to lend more money than they hold in reserves, contributing to economic instability.
- Abandonment of the Gold Standard: Detaching currency from tangible assets like gold has led to fiat money—currency without intrinsic value, upheld solely by government decree.
These developments have centralized financial power within the government, enabling policies that can infringe upon individual property rights.
A Biblical Perspective
From a biblical standpoint, the notion that the state owns all money is problematic. Scripture teaches that God is the ultimate owner of all things (Psalm 24:1). When governments claim absolute ownership over money, they usurp a role that belongs to the divine, leading to forms of tyranny.
This scenario mirrors the warning given to Israel when they demanded a human king, rejecting God’s sovereignty. God cautioned that such a king would take their sons, daughters, and the best of their fields and flocks (1 Samuel 8). Similarly, when governments overstep their bounds, they encroach upon the liberties and properties of their citizens.
The DOJ’s argument that money isn’t property sets a dangerous precedent. It challenges the very concept of private property and individual rights. As citizens, it’s imperative to remain vigilant and advocate for the protection of our constitutional rights. Recognizing and resisting such governmental overreach is essential to preserving the freedoms that underpin a just and equitable society.
