« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

28th Amendment (proposed)

By: Frederick (Diary)  |  January 9th, 2009 at 05:56 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“No person or entity shall be relieved of property or possessions to favor the property or possessions of another person, entity or government without just compensation provided, except for those activities which are specifically listed as responsibilities of government in the Constitution of the United States, or of the State in which that property is possessed.”

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • baseketball

    And even if it did, it’s far too ambiguous. “Just compensation”? Determined by whom? Nobody can even agree on what activities are specifically listed as responsibilities of the government. Define “to favor the property or possessions of another person, entity or government”. Did I mention it will never pass?

  • baseketball

    This is not at all strict constructionalism, although you seem to think it is. You may not realize that you are tacitly endorsing the opinion that the federal government can go beyond the powers explicitly laid out for it in the constitution.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    …to create a document that would appeal to the anti-eminent domain liberals out there, but which, when explained would show them that welfare is just another form of eminent domain…

    Not having posted in a long while, I had forgotten about the rules of such short posts. This one should probably have been a comment somewhere, or expanded to create a more fleshed-out post.

  • joshleguern

    …it’s legitimate, the founding fathers wanted to include a right to property in the Constitution, but decided against it when they knew pro-slavery factions of the new Republic would use it to deem abolitionism as “Unconstitutional.”

    Since slavery is no longer an issue, why not put a definitive right to property in the constitution?