|
This fine book by Prof. Richard Epstein has probably been more influential than the casual reader may be aware. The heart of Epstein's claim is that _anything_ the government does that imposes any sort of "cost" on anybody amounts to a "taking" for which the Constitution requires just compensation. We all know how this is supposed to work as applied to the usual exercise of eminent domain. But Epstein casts his net wide and argues that the takings clause applies to all sorts of things you never would have thought of -- welfare programs, rent control, jiggery-pokery with the national currency, you name it. The impact of the book is evident mainly through "negative" evidence. For example, some readers may recall that during the Clarence Thomas hearings, somebody asked Thomas if he believed the stuff in this book (as the Congresscritter in question clearly did not). I think Thomas managed to duck the question, but the point was made. And at any rate, it tells you something that somebody found it important to _ask_ the question in the first place. Then, too, my own property-law casebook remarks somewhere near the end that Epstein's views on "takings" have not been found convincing by too many people. Interesting that the book still finds it necessary to mention his work, then. So check it out. Sure, it's radical, and (let's admit it frankly) it's probably not a correct interpretation of the framers' intent. But if you're not a tax-and-spend Congresscritter, maybe you'll find it as pregnant and alluring a suggestion as I do. And it's one of Epstein's best books; I think he wrote it before he had completely converted to utilitarianism. You don't have to agree with it, but you should at least learn why Federalistas are afraid of it.
|
