zoomoutpls on Nostr: In fact, the sentence in footnote 8 is surprising, according to which “money is not ...
In fact, the sentence in footnote 8 is surprising, according to which “money is not necessarily ‘property’ for constitutional purposes”.
Especially as the references do not support this view. The author is in fact confusing the constitutional discussion - which goes back a long way - on whether the state can also enter into (monetary) transactions outside of the powers granted to it by the constitution with his thesis.
In my opinion, not a single one of his references (court decisions etc.) supports his thesis.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1447450.html
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/493/52/#T10
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/
...
What is striking, however, and hence my comment from yesterday, is that the case is about something completely different and the author makes a quasi-unnecessary turn here into a discussion of monetary theory that was not even intended by the plaintiff ("for the remarkable proposition that violations of public rights transform into private
rights simply because those violations are enforced by monetary penalties").
however:
In my opinion, his thesis - as of today - cannot be found or even justified in constitutional law or in the case law of the US.
Especially as the references do not support this view. The author is in fact confusing the constitutional discussion - which goes back a long way - on whether the state can also enter into (monetary) transactions outside of the powers granted to it by the constitution with his thesis.
In my opinion, not a single one of his references (court decisions etc.) supports his thesis.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1447450.html
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/493/52/#T10
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/
...
What is striking, however, and hence my comment from yesterday, is that the case is about something completely different and the author makes a quasi-unnecessary turn here into a discussion of monetary theory that was not even intended by the plaintiff ("for the remarkable proposition that violations of public rights transform into private
rights simply because those violations are enforced by monetary penalties").
however:
In my opinion, his thesis - as of today - cannot be found or even justified in constitutional law or in the case law of the US.