Digital Commons Network^™

Take-Ings, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The word property had many meanings in 1789, as it does today, and a critical aspect of the ongoing debate about the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause has centered on how the word should be read in the context of the Clause. Property has been read by Professor Thomas Merrill to refer to "ownership" interests, by Richard Epstein in terms of a broad Blackstonian conception of the individual control of the possession, use, and disposition of resources, by Benjamin Barros as reflective of constructions through individual expectations and state law, and by the author as physical control of …

Panel: Restrictions On Freedom Of Association Through Material Support Prohibitions And Visa Denials, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the 1950s, we were afraid of communism. We were afraid, in particular, of the Soviet Union, the world's second greatest superpower, which was armed with masses of nuclear warheads aimed at all our largest cities. As a result, we fought the Cold War, engaged in espionage, proxy wars, and an arms race. We also took aggressive preventive measures at home. The principal preventive measure of that period was guilt by association. We made it a crime to be a member of the Communist Party, and we created a whole administrative scheme to implement and enforce this notion of guilt …

Review Of Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics And Politics, By William A. Fischel, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews Regulatory Takings: law, Economics and Politics by William A. Fischel (1997).

William Fischel's Regulatory Takings confronts one of the most difficult and significant questions in constitutional law: how should courts determine which government regulations run afoul of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to provide compensation when it takes private property? Broadly read, the clause would bar government regulations with redistributive consequences, thus rendering the modern regulatory state unconstitutional. This reading, championed by Professor Richard Epstein, has achieved great prominence in academic and political debates, but the vast preponderance of judges and …

The Original Understanding Of The Takings Clause And The Political Process, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The original understanding of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was clear on two points. The clause required compensation when the federal government physically took private property, but not when government regulations limited the ways in which property could be used. In 1922, however, the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon established a new takings regime. In an opinion by Justice Holmes, the Court held that compensation must be provided when government regulation "goes too far" in diminishing the value of private property. Since that decision, the Supreme Court has been unable to define clearly what kind …

The Fifth Amendment: If An Aid To The Guilty Defendant, An Impediment To The Innocent One, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The fifth amendment's privilege not to answer, critics carp, insulates the guilty defendant from revealing his complicity. While this is true, ironically it also can shackle the innocent defendant from attempting to prove that another person committed the crime. If that other person asserts the fifth amendment in response to questions designed to substitute him for the defendant, the innocent defendant can neither surmount that person's assertion nor benefit therefrom.

Consider this set of facts. A murder is committed. Defendant, charged with the crime, has evidence that Witness killed the victim. The prosecution believes only one person committed the crime. …

The Origins And Original Significance Of The Just Compensation Clause Of The Fifth Amendment, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The principle that the state necessarily owes compensation when it takes private property was not generally accepted in either colonial or revolutionary America. Uncompensated takings were frequent and found justification first in appeals to the crown and later in republicanism, the ideology of the Revolution. The post-independence movement for just compensation requirements at the state and national level was part of a broader ideological shift away from republicanism, which stressed the primacy of the common good, and toward liberalism. At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, that shift had not been completed, but the trends of the revolutionary …