As "Shelter in Place" Orders "Took" Citizens' Labor & Business Property w/o Just Compensation in Violation of the 5th Amendment at Least 12 “Legistraitors" Got Paid Off the COVID Rescue Program

From [HERE] At least a dozen lawmakers have ties to organizations that received federal coronavirus aid, according to newly released government data, showing how Washington insiders were both authors and beneficiaries of one of the biggest government programs in U.S. history.

Under pressure from Congress and outside groups, the Trump administration this week disclosed the names of some loan recipients in the $659 billion Paycheck Protection Program, launched in April to help allegedly small businesses keep Americans employed during the pandemic. Connections to lawmakers, and the organizations that work to influence them, were quickly apparent.

Among businesses that received money was a California hotel partially owned by the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a shipping business started by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao’s family. Chao is married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Car dealerships owned by at least three Republican House members — Reps. Roger Williams of Texas, Vern Buchanan of Florida and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania — received money. So did fast-food franchises owned by Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., a law firm owned by the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and the former law firm of Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., which employs his wife.

Money also flowed to a farming and equipment business owned by the family of Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., and a regional casino company led by the husband of Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev.

Members of Congress and their families are not barred from receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, and there is no evidence they received special treatment. Loans were granted to Democrats and Republicans alike, something President Trump’s campaign mentioned when records showed donors to his campaign were among the earliest beneficiaries.

Hundreds of millions of dollars also flowed to political consultants, opposition research shops, law firms, advocacy organizations and trade associations whose work is based on influencing government and politics. [MORE]

Last year In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees property owners a right to just compensation at the time a taking occurs. The majority opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al, No. 17-647, explicitly overrules Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985), which required plaintiffs to seek compensation in state courts first before bringing federal constitutional claims under the Fifth Amendment. [MORE]. This assumes that a Government has given you some Constitutional Rights or you and a government orderly believe that you have them.

Meanwhile governors across the country have issued executive orders mandating the closure of businesses they deem non-essential in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. Slowing the spread of COVID-19, in turn, benefits all the state’s residents. Thus, the owner of the closed business is made to sacrifice the use of his or her property for the good of the general public. Has the state thereby effected a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments for which it must compensate the business owner?

There are good arguments for getting to yes. Although shelter in place orders may be necessary they are nevertheless Government seizures of people’s livelihoods and businesses that have forced indefinite closures and widespread layoffs. The government’s actions may be described as “uncompensated takings” that violate the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. That is, the government is legally obligated to properly compensate citizens for their tangible losses.

Because the orders would be characterized to effect an alleged regulatory (rather than physical) taking, a fact-intensive, multi-factor analysis applies. The Orders constitute a regulatory taking implemented for a recognized public purpose, and therefore the failure to pay just compensation contravenes the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992); Horne v. Dep't of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 135 S. Ct. 2419, 2426 (2015) (“Nothing in the text or history of the Takings Clause, or our precedents, suggests that the rule is any different when it comes to appropriation of personal property. The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.”).

A recent lawsuit makes such an argument and the complaint explains, ‘Without extending constitutionally required just compensation to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, [shelter in place] Orders jeopardize the sustainability of many businesses and the livelihoods those businesses provide to individuals.’ [MORE]