Slate has a critical piece on 9th Curcuit Judge Jay Bybee's decision in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta which argues that he's engaged in conservative judicial activism by injecting his own view of the Constitution's Takings Clause and ignoring precedent. The decision concerns whether any level of government can, constitutionally, impose rent controls on property, or whether doing so amounts to a "takings."
There appears to be a healthy debate in legal circles about just what the Constitution's authors meant when they wrote that private property could not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Here's an interview on the subject with Richard Epstein.
One of the issues involved is whether a "regulatory taking" is effectively the same thing as an actual seizure of property.
Some background:
- A Brief History of the Takings Clause.
- The Takings of Private Property.
- The Takings Clause, From the Heritage Foundation.
- Eminent Domain, From Findlaw.
