Top Law Schools

Hi all,

Is the property clause the same thing as the takings clause of the 5A?

ReachTheBar79 wrote:Hi all,

Is the property clause the same thing as the takings clause of the 5A?

Property Clause is Art IV, and gives the Congress right to dispose of and make all rules and regulations re federal property. Look for federal lands, federal buildings, military airplanes/ships, army bases, etc.

If MBE chooses to be evil, they can test about the Property Clause in a standing question

There is an exception for a taxpayer suit challenging a specific congressional appropriation made under the taxing and spending powers for violation of the Establishment Clause. HOWEVER, this exception does not apply to the transfer of property to a religious organization by Congress under the Property Clause. It is a very very narrow exception, one that would make for quite the MBE question.

.

BrokenMouse wrote:

Gamecubesupreme wrote:If MBE chooses to be evil, they can test about the Property Clause in a standing question

There is an exception for a taxpayer suit challenging a specific congressional appropriation made under the taxing and spending powers for violation of the Establishment Clause. HOWEVER, this exception does not apply to the transfer of property to a religious organization by Congress under the Property Clause. It is a very very narrow exception, one that would make for quite the MBE question.

Simple way to remember is government can give land to a religion but not money, because giving land isn't directly advancing religion (lol wut?)

So the government can just give land away to a religious group? Really? Does it actually do that now....I don't know of any national parks that are owned by religious groups? Or am I missing this....?

ReachTheBar79 wrote: So the government can just give land away to a religious group? Really? Does it actually do that now....I don't know of any national parks that are owned by religious groups? Or am I missing this....?

Perhaps the Malheur occupiers up in Oregon wanted that. Ammon Bundy is actually a Constitutional scholar after all!

.

BrokenMouse wrote:

Gamecubesupreme wrote:If MBE chooses to be evil, they can test about the Property Clause in a standing question

There is an exception for a taxpayer suit challenging a specific congressional appropriation made under the taxing and spending powers for violation of the Establishment Clause. HOWEVER, this exception does not apply to the transfer of property to a religious organization by Congress under the Property Clause. It is a very very narrow exception, one that would make for quite the MBE question.

Simple way to remember is government can give land to a religion but not money, because giving land isn't directly advancing religion (lol wut?)

What happens to Establishment Clause then?

Sue wrote:
What happens to Establishment Clause then?

Perhaps when the government just gives property (as opposed to money) it is ok because it is not an "entanglement" with Religion. Like when the government gives non-religious textbooks to religious schools. That's ok.

6TimeFailure wrote:

Sue wrote:
What happens to Establishment Clause then?

Perhaps when the government just gives property (as opposed to money) it is ok because it is not an "entanglement" with Religion. Like when the government gives non-religious textbooks to religious schools. That's ok.

It's confusing because in the MBE world, when the government gives non-religious textbooks to religious schools, it also gives to non-religious schools. So when the government gives land to a religious group, it's not giving the same land to a non-religious group. Basically the government can just give land to whomever it wants?