Yesterday's Washington Post reported on the Supreme Court's recent decision making it easier for local governments to forbid building on private property without compensating owners for the loss in value. Check out some of Post reporter's language. He wrote that the Supreme Court decision "strengthens the hand of environmental regulators against the conservative-led 'property rights' movement."

You might recall my previous comments on the use of italics in a news article to derogate a point of view. Now, you can search until your eyes bleed and you won't find one reference in any of the Washington Post archives to "the liberal-led 'abortion rights' movement," "the liberal-led 'environmental' movement," or "the liberal-led 'progressive taxation' movement." In fact, odds are that you won't find the phrase "liberal-led" in front of anything that is derogated by italics.

And think about what this reporter has chosen to italicize: "property rights." Now go read the Bill of Rights, specifically, the Fifth freaking Amendment. My history's a little fuzzy, but I believe that the Founders called it "the Fifth freaking Amendment" as well. They thought it was that important. Here's a relevant snippet:

"No person . . . [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

I could be mistaken, but that looks like the shadow of a definition of a property right. If one isn't sure, one could read, in conjunction with the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") the Federalist Papers, or perhaps the opening stanza of the freaking Constitution itself (again, I speak for the sake of historical accuracy), specifically that part about Liberty, or in Washington Post parlance, "liberty."

In other words, we really do have property rights in the U.S., at least for a while longer. They aren't property "rights", or "so-called" property rights, they are bona fide, Constitutionally established, I'll-shoot-you-if-you-try-to-steal-mine (Second Amendment, for you Washington Post staffers) claims to property.

Of course, that may be more than we can expect a Washington Post "news" reporter to be able to figure out.