3 ms·
No law could permit uncompensated seizure as it would violate the 4th Amendment. Forced labor would violate the 13th Amendment. A better to way to look at it is
by wahern 6y ago
No law could permit uncompensated seizure as it would violate the 4th Amendment. Forced labor would violate the 13th Amendment. A better to way to look at it is that the DPA sets the rules for commercial activity--if you want to undertake commercial activity, you have to do so subject to the regulating law, which in the case of the DPA includes the possibility of building and selling whatever the government requests. You could always choose to just walk away, of course.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> No law could permit uncompensated seizure as it would violate the 4th Amendment. 5th. > Forced labor would violate the 13th Amendment. Not if the laborers were convicts, but, yes, generally.
- AaronFriel 6y agoThe takings clause is quite interesting and I imagine that between the expansive national security powers granted to the President and Congress's assent, the Court and the Executive might find a way to justify such a taking perhaps by seizing the foreign ownership of the corporation. Of course the takings clause could also be satisfied by compensating TSMC, which perhaps due to sanctions or congressional action could be tied up indefinitely.