,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Curious: Anyone out there willing to defend the Court's holding in Knick--upsetting well over a century of settled precedent (see the EK dissent)--that a government acts unconstitutionally whenever it takes property for a public purpose unless it provides compensation beforehand?
For example, if Congress authorizes the POTUS to seize property in case of an emergency, w/compensation to be calculated thereafter, is Congress authorizing a Fifth Amendment violation? What about when a police officer requisitions an apartment in responding to a hostage crisis,
...knowing that the owner will be compensated afterward? Has she violated the 14th Amendment? By the lights of the Roberts opinion, does such an official violate the Constitution even if there's an express or implied contemporaneous acknowledgement of entitlement to compensation?
