He has called for a repeal of the Fifth Amendment as it affects the right of private property.
The exercise of the power of eminent domain is against common right. It subverts the usual attributes of the ownership of property.
The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no private property shall be taken for a public use without the payment of just compensation.
Last Thursday, our Supreme Court backed that local governments can co-opt private property, and give it to another private entity, for economic development.
It wouldn't be fair to say that conservatives cherish property the way liberals cherish equality. But it would be fair to say that the takings clause is the conservatives' recipe for judicial activism just as they say liberals have misused the equal protection clause.
The 'takings' clause of the Fifth Amendment is for conservatives what the equal protection clause of the 14th is for liberals.
The case decided on Thursday, though, seemed promising to takings fans because it wasn't about compensation. It was about the requirement that any government taking must have a 'public purpose.'
Governments should not be able to bulldoze a person's home or business to benefit other individuals.
All private property is held subject to the demands of a public use. The constitutional guarantee of just compensation is not a limitation of the power to take, but only a condition of its exercise.
The power of eminent domain is essential to a sovereign government.
The power of eminent domain is merely the means to an end.
