US Constitution and Property Law

A patent claim filed in court is not decided under the “supreme law” of the land (Article I Section 8 of the Constitution) but under color of the huge and onerous Patent Law. Once an eminent domain case is filed in court it is not decided under the “supreme” law lof the land (5th Amendment) but under color of the huge and onerous Eminent Domain Law. Judges have been converted becoming the commissars and gauleiters of government and its agents, for taking property without compensation. Recently, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) held that a government violates the Takings Clause the moment it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may assert a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at that time, without pursuing a state-law remedy first. The intended, or unintended, effect of the Knick decision is to replace eminent domain law by the Takings Clause (Amendment V). Who knows, constitutional principles now matter.

1137506264
US Constitution and Property Law

A patent claim filed in court is not decided under the “supreme law” of the land (Article I Section 8 of the Constitution) but under color of the huge and onerous Patent Law. Once an eminent domain case is filed in court it is not decided under the “supreme” law lof the land (5th Amendment) but under color of the huge and onerous Eminent Domain Law. Judges have been converted becoming the commissars and gauleiters of government and its agents, for taking property without compensation. Recently, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) held that a government violates the Takings Clause the moment it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may assert a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at that time, without pursuing a state-law remedy first. The intended, or unintended, effect of the Knick decision is to replace eminent domain law by the Takings Clause (Amendment V). Who knows, constitutional principles now matter.

4.95 In Stock
US Constitution and Property Law

US Constitution and Property Law

by James Constant
US Constitution and Property Law

US Constitution and Property Law

by James Constant

eBook

$4.95 

Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now

Related collections and offers

LEND ME® See Details

Overview

A patent claim filed in court is not decided under the “supreme law” of the land (Article I Section 8 of the Constitution) but under color of the huge and onerous Patent Law. Once an eminent domain case is filed in court it is not decided under the “supreme” law lof the land (5th Amendment) but under color of the huge and onerous Eminent Domain Law. Judges have been converted becoming the commissars and gauleiters of government and its agents, for taking property without compensation. Recently, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) held that a government violates the Takings Clause the moment it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may assert a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at that time, without pursuing a state-law remedy first. The intended, or unintended, effect of the Knick decision is to replace eminent domain law by the Takings Clause (Amendment V). Who knows, constitutional principles now matter.


Product Details

BN ID: 2940164223205
Publisher: James Constant
Publication date: 08/17/2020
Series: Patent Reform
Sold by: Smashwords
Format: eBook
File size: 36 KB

About the Author

writes on law, government, mathematics and science, as they are and as they should be

From the B&N Reads Blog

Customer Reviews