The proper construction of the compensation clause of the Constitution has emerged as the central legal issue of the environmental revolution, as property owners have challenged a steady stream of environmental statutes that have cut deeply into traditional notions of property rights. When may they justly demand that the state compensate them for the sacrifices they are called upon to make for the common good? Ackerman argues that there is more at stake in the present wave of litigation than even the future shape of environmental law in the United States. To frame an adequate response, lawyers must come to terms with an analytic conflict that implicates the nature of modern legal thought itself. Ackerman expresses this conflict in terms of two opposed ideal types---Scientific Policymaking and Ordinary Observing---and sketches the very different way in which these competing approaches understand the compensation question. He also tries to demonstrate that the confusion of current compensation doctrine is a product of the legal profession's failure to choose between these two modes of legal analysis.He concludes by exploring the large implications of such a choice---relating the conflict between Scientific Policymaking and Ordinary Observing to fundamental issues in economic analysis, political theory, metaethics, and the philosophy of language.

Federalists vision of the Constitution; an interdisciplinary investigation.

This book details the relationship between private property and government. As private property is important to both individual welfare and the public interest, the book provides an intellectual framework for the analysis and resolution of contemporary property rights disputes.

Offers policy recommendations from Cato Institute experts on every major policy issue. Providing both in-depth analysis and concrete recommendations, the Handbook is an invaluable resource for policymakers and anyone else interested in securing liberty through limited government.

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. Epstein argues that this narrow interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the takings clause and the political theory that animates it. He develops a coherent normative theory that permits us to distinguish between permissible takings for public use and impermissible ones. He then examines a wide range of government regulations and taxes under a single comprehensive theory. He asks four questions: What constitutes a taking of private property? When is that taking justified without compensation under the police power? When is a taking for public use? And when is a taking compensated, in cash or in kind? Zoning, rent control, progressive and special taxes, workers’ compensation, and bankruptcy are only a few of the programs analyzed within this framework. Epstein’s theory casts doubt upon the established view today that the redistribution of wealth is a proper function of government. Throughout the book he uses recent developments in law and economics and the theory of collective choice to find in the eminent domain clause a theory of political obligation that he claims is superior to any of its modern rivals.

Controversies over public regulation of private land have dominated political agendas in recent years, especially at the local level. Land use and environmental regulation have reached unprecedented levels, and federal and state courts have garnered recent headlines by striking down regulations. Rights and regulations are on a collision course, and how they are reconciled will have a major impact on individuals, governments, and communities in the decades ahead. This book is the first systematic attempt to assess key constitutional developments in the land use field during the last decade in state and federal supreme courts. It highlights important trends, including the growing role of state supreme courts, attacks on regulation as exclusionary, and the emergence of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment as a potentially major limitation on governmental power.

Papers from a July 1998 conference, written by public lawyers, property lawyers, and legal philosophers, examine public dimensions of private property. Contributors consider whether property is a human right, and look at its role in making responsible citizens, its relationship to freedom of speech, constitutional protections of private property, and attempts to redress historical wrongs by property settlements to indigenous people. The editor is former director of the New Zealand Institute of Public Law, and a lecturer at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Distributed by ISBS. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR