The Constitution isn’t about making it easy and painless for government officials to do whatever they want.

MORE LIKE THIS, PLEASE: Clarence Thomas Benchslaps the Federal Government in a Property Rights Case. Quoth Thomas:

The United States…urges us not to enforce the Takings Clause as written. It worries that requiring payment to accompany a taking would allow courts to enjoin or invalidate broad regulatory programs “merely” because the program takes property without paying for it. According to the United States, “there is a ‘nearly infinite variety of ways in which government actions or regulations can affect property interests,’ and it ought to be good enough that the government “implicitly promises to pay compensation for any taking” if a property owner successfully sues the government in court. Government officials, the United States contends, should be able to implement regulatory programs “without fear” of injunction or invalidation under the Takings Clause, “even when” the program is so far reaching that the officials “cannot determine whether a taking will occur.”

The Constitution isn’t about making it easy and painless for government officials to do whatever they want.

Related: In Sharp Dissent, Neil Gorsuch Faults SCOTUS for Letting the Attorney General ‘Write His Own Criminal Code.’ Bring back the non-delegation doctrine.

 

h/t GR

961 views