Problems with the U.S. Constitution?

[Shinokamen]

I quote from the U.S. Constitution:

"Nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [Does this mean 'convicted of a crime'?]; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Now, if I'm not mistaken, the Constitution never provides the means for taking private land for public use. Also, the fifth amendment contains a contradiction. If the government cannot take land "without due process of law," then private property cannot be taken by the federal government unless it is taken as punishment; in which case, it would not require just compensation.

Later on, in the fourteenth amendment, the freedom to keep property, except in the event of due process, is applied to the States. This must mean that the fifth amendment was only referring to the federal government.

Please clear up any holes in my logic.

[y_feldblum]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution are generally directed to the Federal government ("Congress shall make no law", etc). The fourteenth requires the several states to honor the citizenry's same "privileges and immunities" which the Federal government honors, including those of due process and of just compensation for theft by eminent domain.

"Due process" bears no necessary relation to conviction. If Congress says so (and if the courts forget that they have the power of judicial review), theft by eminent domain can be done in accordance with due process. But that just means there is a contradiction between the Constitutional permission of theft by eminent domain and the principle of individual rights.

[DavidOdden]

"Nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [Does this mean 'convicted of a crime'?]; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

It doesn't mean convicted of a crime. It simply says that the sheriff cannot decide "I like that car, I'm confiscating it". There has to be a legal procedure. You can jail a person regardless of there being a crime, as long as there is a legal procedure. (e.g. Japanese concentration camps in the US during WWII).

Now, if I'm not mistaken, the Constitution never provides the means for taking private land for public use.

Right: in fact if you read the takings clause strictly, it does not require there to be any compensation at all for a taking for private purposes.

If the government cannot take land "without due process of law," then private property cannot be taken by the federal government unless it is taken as punishment; in which case, it would not require just compensation.

No, it just says that there must be a procedure. Punishment don't enter in to it. Due process of law simply refers to the fact that there have to be procedures. It's only recently that this bizarre concept of "substantive due process" has been invented.

Later on, in the fourteenth amendment, the freedom to keep property, except in the event of due process, is applied to the States. This must mean that the fifth amendment was only referring to the federal government.

Are you referring to the fact that the first part of the 14th says that "And all of this applies to the states as well"? The wording of the Constitution and BOR does not say this, and I don't think that as a matter of course, there was a clear belief that the states themselves were restricted, until the 14th Amendment.

[Seeker]

If you're looking for a textual basis for takings, the "necessary and proper" clause might get you there (quite apart from whether takings per se can ever be proper).

[Shinokamen]

Thank you for the input.