They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner’s will.
They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner’s will.
someguy3@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If they covered compensation it was so brief (and lopsided) that I missed it. I think over half the point of that phrase of the amendment was about compensation. But all they said was take take take take private take private take. It was overwhelmingly horribly biased for what they wanted. IMHO take isn’t even the right word because that implies taking without compensation, which there was. If you consider them balanced for scotus and biased for the rest, holy shit.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It is called the Takings Clause by the Supreme Court, Cornell Law, and pretty much anyone else who talks about it. Expect the word “take” in a discussion about it.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It is called the Takings Clause by
someguy3@lemmy.world 2 months ago
And when you read the whole thing, I think most of it is about compensation. And in common parlance in discussion when we use the term “take”, well it means take. That’s what I’m referring to. They discuss as if it’s only taking.
I guess we won’t agree, but I feel the need to call out horribly biased “discussion” and warn people what they’re listening to.