DOJ’s Shocking Argument: Fiat Money May Not Be Considered Property
A legal battle between the U.S. Department of Labor and a landscaping company has sparked controversy after the Department of Justice (DOJ) suggested that money is not necessarily property under the Constitution. The claim left Rob Johnson, a senior attorney at the Institute of Justice, stunned.
DOJ’s Argument: Is Money Truly Property?
The dispute, C.S. Lawn & Landscape v. U.S. Department of Labor, has raised serious constitutional questions. In a surprising footnote, the District Court of Columbia argued that fiat money does not necessarily qualify as “property” for constitutional purposes. The reasoning behind this claim includes:
Read More: Robert Kiyosaki Predicts Bitcoin Crash Amid Trump’s Tariffs—Plans to Buy the Dip
Fiat currency is created by the government, which also has the authority to reclaim it through taxation—a process not legally considered property deprivation.
HireBlockchain Developers: DigiCodeGlobal IT Services
Congress’ power to spend money has been widely debated, as it is tied to providing for the general welfare, per the U.S. Constitution. The court suggests that if money were property, these debates wouldn’t exist.
The government has the constitutional authority to control and allocate U.S. financial resources, which complicates the classification of money as property.
Legal and Economic Implications
Rob Johnson warns that this argument could set a dangerous precedent, allowing the government to seize money without due process. He cautioned:
“If your money is not your property, what is to stop the government from just seizing all of it tomorrow—for any reason it gives?”
Johnson believes that even though this argument may not hold up in higher courts, it underscores the uncertainty surrounding fiat currency. He suggests that people consider holding part of their wealth in gold or cryptocurrency as a hedge against potential government overreach.
HireBlockchain Developers: DigiCodeGlobal IT Services
Next Steps in the Case
The case is set to move to a federal court, where Johnson anticipates that this controversial interpretation of money will be overturned. However, the discussion raises fundamental concerns about financial sovereignty, property rights, and the role of government in monetary policy.
As this case unfolds, it could have far-reaching consequences for how money is legally defined—and how it is protected under the law.
