{"id":194796,"date":"2015-03-24T01:02:38","date_gmt":"2015-03-24T05:02:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/uncategorized\/volokh-conspiracy-constitutional-and-property-law-scholars-amicus-brief-in-horne-v-dept-of-agriculture-the-raisin.php"},"modified":"2015-03-24T01:02:38","modified_gmt":"2015-03-24T05:02:38","slug":"volokh-conspiracy-constitutional-and-property-law-scholars-amicus-brief-in-horne-v-dept-of-agriculture-the-raisin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/fifth-amendment\/volokh-conspiracy-constitutional-and-property-law-scholars-amicus-brief-in-horne-v-dept-of-agriculture-the-raisin.php","title":{"rendered":"Volokh Conspiracy: Constitutional and property law scholars amicus brief in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture  the raisin &#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    I am part of a group of constitutional and property law    scholars who have filed an amicus brief in,     Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, an important    Supreme Court case that will determine whether a federal    program that forces owners to turn over large quantities of    raisins to the government creates a taking that requires    compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The brief is available        here.  <\/p>\n<p>    The     Ninth Circuit court of appeals rejected the owners claim    in large part because it concluded that the just compensation    requirement of the Takings Clause affords less protection to    personal [property] such as the raisins, than to real    property (real property is the legal term for property in    land).  <\/p>\n<p>    Our brief points out what should have been obvious from the    start: the text, history, and original meaning of the Takings    Clause Fifth Amendment does not distinguish between real and    personal property. The text specifically references private    property generally, and is not limited to any particular type    of property right. Nor does it indicate that one type is given    less protection than another. Moreover, as we note, the desire    to protect personal property against government requisitions    was one of the main reasons why the Takings Clause and similar    provisions in state constitutions were adopted in the first    place. Modern Supreme Court precedent also makes clear that    personal property is protected against uncompensated seizure,    no less than real property.  <\/p>\n<p>    The federal government also claims that there is no taking    because the owners of the raisins benefit from the program that    mandates their seizure. The purpose of the program is to    artifically reduce the supply of raisins on the market, thereby    creating a cartel that benefits producers. We point out that    such benefits might reduce the amount of compensation the    government owes. But it does not change the fact that a taking    has occurred. Otherwise, the government could avoid paying full    compensation in numerous other cases where property is taken by    the state for purposes that might benefit the owners in some    way. For example, if part of a coastal property is used by the    government to build a military base, the owner may derive some    benefit from the construction, because his remaining land may    be more secure against attack. But that does not mean no taking    has occurred, or that he is not entitled to full market value    compensation.  <\/p>\n<p>    The other signers include prominent academic experts on    constitutional property rights, including my James Ely    (Vanderbilt, author of The Guardian of Every Other Right: A    Constitutional History of Property Rights), Nicole Garnett    (Notre Dame), and my George Mason University colleague Adam    Mossoff, among others.  <\/p>\n<p>    Horne is one of the rare cases that that has gone to    the Supreme Court twice. In 2013, the Court     unanimously rejected the federal governments claim that    the property owners should not even be allowed to present their    Takings Clause argument in federal court without first paying    some $483,000 in fines and pursuing various likely futile    administrative remedies.  <\/p>\n<p>      Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University.      His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and      popular political participation. He is the author of \"The      Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of      Eminent Domain\" (forthcoming) and \"Democracy and Political      Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter.\"    <\/p>\n<p>    Continue reading     10 minutes left  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Go here to read the rest: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/feeds.washingtonpost.com\/c\/34656\/f\/636635\/s\/44b457ed\/sc\/7\/l\/0L0Swashingtonpost0N0Cnews0Cvolokh0Econspiracy0Cwp0C20A150C0A30C230Cconstitutional0Eand0Eproperty0Elaw0Escholars0Eamicus0Ebrief0Ein0Ehorne0Ev0Edept0Eof0Eagriculture0Ethe0Eraisin0Etakings0Ecase0C0Dwprss0Frss0Inational\/story01.htm\/RK=0\/RS=vLNtMUauES.5IZnwRDumQPctRU0-\" title=\"Volokh Conspiracy: Constitutional and property law scholars amicus brief in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture  the raisin ...\">Volokh Conspiracy: Constitutional and property law scholars amicus brief in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture  the raisin ...<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> I am part of a group of constitutional and property law scholars who have filed an amicus brief in, Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, an important Supreme Court case that will determine whether a federal program that forces owners to turn over large quantities of raisins to the government creates a taking that requires compensation under the Fifth Amendment.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/fifth-amendment\/volokh-conspiracy-constitutional-and-property-law-scholars-amicus-brief-in-horne-v-dept-of-agriculture-the-raisin.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[261462],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fifth-amendment"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194796"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}