Socialism: An Invasive Political Weed
At first blush, it might seem that such expropriation is facially unconstitutional, specifically, a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of seizing property without just compensation, and then only for a “public purpose.” And you’d be right. There is no compensation here, and no real “public purpose” as that phrase is properly understood.
But Mamdani clearly thinks he’s found a way around that little inconvenience of unconstitutionality. Perhaps taking a cue from a big part of his constituency, his plan identifies as being merely an exercise of New York’s police powers. (Wikipedia’s definition is actually pretty good: “In United States constitutional law, the police power is the authority of the U.S. states to pass laws regulating behavior and enforcing order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants”).
You see, there are horrible landlords in New York. They fail to maintain their buildings, leading to shocking living conditions for residents. (Unmentioned is the fact that New York’s baroque system of rent regulations reduces the incentive to maintain). So by seizing the properties from these loathsome types, New York will improve the health and safety of New Yorkers. Meaning that these seizures are totes constitutional, under the 10th Amendment .
Even overlooking the issue of constitutionality, this argument is facially absurd. The upkeep and safety of public housing has always been appalling. Cabrini-Green, anyone? Pruitt-Igoe? I guarantee that any property that passes into the hands of New York City, or its NGO minions, will be markedly less livable afterwards than it is now.
Returning to the issue of constitutionality, this initiative will definitely face legal challenges. Will Mamdani’s police power argument persuade the courts–especially, as would be inevitable, the Supreme Court?
I highly, highly doubt it. Perhaps there is some judge in the various New York federal districts who will rule that the plan passes constitutional muster. Second Circuit? Unlikely. Supreme Court? Absent court packing, I can’t see how.
In part because Mamdani’s gambit is transparently a Trojan Horse to achieve unconstitutional objectives that he and his political cohort have long advocated. Mamdani and his fellow travelers have long made clear their desires to replace private ownership with public on ideological grounds, i.e., to realize their socialist vision. A vision that is patently in violation of the 5th Amendment. To turn around now, and say “Socialism? Heaven forfend! Wherever did you get that idea? This is purely a health and safety measure!”, is facially and totally incredible. An honest court will see through that in a minute. Their past words condemn them.
Not to mention that even if there is a police powers justification for some housing regulation, that does not justify such extreme regulation. New York already has various housing quality regulations. Indeed, they are the predicate for Mamdani’s initiative. Why not just enforce those more effectively? “We have police powers, we just suck at exercising them so we have to seize property” is hardly a persuasive argument. A police powers argument may be necessary for Mamdani’s plan to succeed legally, but it is not a sufficient one.
I think that in the end Mamdani’s socialist ambitions will be thwarted. But what’s troubling is what they say about the current American political situation. A proud and open socialist was elected mayor of America’s largest city. What’s more, socialism is making a big comeback, especially among the young, and especially especially among the “educated” young. (I put “educated” in quotes because attending college does not mean you are actually educated. Indeed, it means that you are almost certainly not: as Joel Kotkin persuasively argues, “indoctrinated” is a more accurate word). Mamdani’s plan is not meeting with outrage. To the contrary.
Despite the fact that socialism has failed everywhere and every time it has been attempted, it retains its allure in the minds of many. They seem hell-bent on learning by their own experience, rather than the sad experiences of others. Santayana’s warning (“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”) is lost on them.
In a word, socialism is a political weed. No matter how many times you cut it or pull it, it always comes back.
“socialism is a political weed.” Rather I’d say it’s a family of political weeds. There’s presumably some point, some of the time, in distinguishing the different socialist cults – Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Pol Potism, fascism, Nazism, … Even Swedish Social Democracy, with its long weakness for eugenic sterilisations, or British Labourism, with its backing of physical violence by trade unionists.
I once worked in a university department where the decency, and high skill levels, of the tradesmen in the mechanical workshop were obvious. I asked an older academic how we’d been so lucky to find such people. “It wasn’t luck” he said “they are all refugees from the unionised local factories. They’d rather work where they are treated with courtesy and respect rather than being bullied by the shop stewards.”
Comment by dearieme — June 28, 2026 @ 10:54 am