Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent DomainHarvard University Press, 1985. 1. 1. - 376페이지 If legal scholar Richard Epstein is right, then the New Deal is wrong, if not unconstitutional. Epstein reaches this sweeping conclusion after making a detailed analysis of the eminent domain, or takings, clause of the Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. In contrast to the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the eminent domain clause has been interpreted narrowly. It has been invoked to force the government to compensate a citizen when his land is taken to build a post office, but not when its value is diminished by a comprehensive zoning ordinance. |
목차
A Tale of Two Pies | 3 |
Hobbesian Man Lockean World | 7 |
The Integrity of Constitutional Text | 19 |
Takings Prima Facie | 33 |
Takings and Torts | 35 |
Partial Takings The Unity of Ownership | 57 |
Possession and Use | 63 |
Rights of Disposition and Contract | 74 |
Public Use and Just Compensation | 159 |
Public Use | 161 |
Explicit Compensation | 182 |
Implicit InKind Compensation | 195 |
Property and the Common Pool | 216 |
Tort | 229 |
Regulation | 263 |
Taxation | 283 |
Taking from Many Liability Rules Regulations and Taxes | 93 |
Justifications for Takings | 105 |
The Police Power Ends | 107 |
The Police Power Means | 126 |
Consent and Assumption of Risk | 146 |
Transfer Payments and Welfare Rights | 306 |
Philosophical Implications | 331 |
353 | |
358 | |