4 ms·
> And I assume part of their argument was precisely that this was reasonable. No, the homeowner said the destruction of his home was a Taking per the Fifth Ame
by icebraining 7y ago
> And I assume part of their argument was precisely that this was reasonable.
No, the homeowner said the destruction of his home was a Taking per the Fifth Amendment, like in a case of eminent domain. The court disagreed, and said the destruction was based on the powers the state has for enforcing the law. Reasonableness of the action didn't enter into it.
- shantly 7y agoI assume a simple "they didn't have a good reason to wreck my house and should pay for it" was a legal non-starter, then, hence the plainly longer-shot (all else being equal) eminent domain argument?