Talk:Taking

Question
Does "taking" require "without the payment of just compensation". I think a "taking" occurs when any of the three conditions happens, and "taking" does not depend wether compensaton is just ot not.

The following is from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=taking which sites Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Main Entry: tak·ing Function: noun 1 : a seizure of private property or a substantial deprivation of the right to its free use or enjoyment that is caused by government action and esp. by the exercise of eminent domain and for which just compensation to the owner must be given according to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution —see also INVERSE CONDEMNATION, PHYSICAL TAKING, REGULATORY TAKING NOTE: A governmental action that results in a mere diminution in property value is less likely to be considered a taking than one that deprives the owner of economically viable use of the property.

I believe a taking is just "a permanent physical occupation authorized by [the] government" (Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan [458 US 419]). The actual taking is not depriving the citizen of just compensation, the taking is simply the act that warrants the just compensation. -- Mason13a 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

POV term
This article is based on a right-wing book title (or at any rate, by anti-government advocates/activists). Let's see, if the government doing ANYTHING to private property (or to any property at all, since the supporters of this term believe that all property is private and absolutely no property should be owned or regulated by government; only people) is called TAKING, what do you call it when they lock people up in jail/prison for victimless crimes (e.g. blasphemy, flag-burning, pot smoking, porn viewing), LOCKING, perhaps? 173.16.124.196 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)