) is often classified as a human right for natural persons in relation to their property. The general recognition of a right to private property is less common and is usually severely restricted because ownership is owned by legal persons (i.e. corporations) and is used for production rather than consumption. [1] (1) Every person has the right to use and enjoy his or her property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interests of the company. The Constitution protects property rights through the provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and more directly through the extraction clause of the Fifth Amendment: “Nor may private property be taken without just compensation for public use.” There are two fundamental ways for the government to take property: (1) directly, by condemning property and taking title; and (2) by regulations that assume the uses and leave title to the owner – so-called regulatory withdrawals. In the first case, the title is too often used not for public use, but for private use; And the compensation the owner receives is rarely fair. In the second case, the owner is often not compensated at all for his losses; And if it is, compensation is again insufficient. The American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) recognizes the right to protection of property, including the right to “just compensation.” The ACHR also prohibits usury and other forms of exploitation, which is unique among human rights instruments. [10] Article 21 of the ACHR states: In general, therefore, Congress should review the many federal regulations affecting private property to determine which are constitutionally permissible and which are not.

If not approved, they would have to be repealed, which would quickly put an end to many of the regulatory measures currently in place. But if approved under a constitutionally enumerated congressional power, the costs currently imposed on some homeowners for benefits generally granted to the public should be “budgeted.” We often hear critics say that if these assets were budgeted, we could not afford them. What they are really saying, of course, is that taxpayers would not be willing to pay for whatever the critics want. Indeed, the great fear of those who oppose a principles-based approach to regulatory revenue is that once the public has to pay for the benefits it now receives “for free,” it will demand less from them. It`s no surprise that people who have to pay for something demand less. However, in the case of regulatory withdrawals, it should be noted that not all of these withdrawals require compensation for an owner. Minimal losses, for example, can be difficult to prove and not worth it.