Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I would think that you would take the view that as long as the owners are justly compensated, the government should have the right to take the property, because we as a society all benefit, directly or indirectly, from the services government provides and those services need to be paid for.
|
Nope. I'm not a communist. I think any taking should be extremely limited, and I would not use a rational basis test for it. And no, I don't think taking and taxation have very much to do with each other.
Though, as I think I've said, I cannot claim to be enough of a constitutional law scholar to say whether that is a correct analysis of the development of con law over the centuries -- hence my "is that what the Constitution means?" reaction.
I really do wonder, though, why the typical Slave/federalist response -- if you don't like the takings law in one state, live in another -- approach doesn't apply. If it applies to personal liberties -- which I believe are at least as important as property rights, and really what the Bill of Rights was directed at -- why wouldn't it apply to property rights? Isn't that what federalism is really all about?
