Article 2. Government shall make no law which restricts an individual's use or enjoyment of his property, nor make any law or regulation which diminishes the value of that property, without compensating the owner at fair market value.

One current example of "taking" is Federal policy regarding property deemed to be "wetlands". The Federal government, purely through regulation rather than through a law passed by Congress, has established such a broad definition of "wetland" that some 70 million acres of active farmland are included. Over 75% of the state of Alaska is officially "wetland". Under existing rules, any alteration whatsoever of existing "wetlands" requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers, and must be offset by creation of an equal acreage of "wetlands." Even moving dirt from one portion of a "wetland" to another portion of the same "wetland" is prohibited without a permit. The effect of "wetlands" regulation is to prevent landowners from raising the economic value of their land by improving it. The regulations effectively "take" the potential increase in value.

Another current example of a "taking" is limitations on billboards located on private property adjacent to highways. In the name of eliminating "visual pollution," the potential income from billboards is "taken."

Yet another current example is rent control. The harmful effects of rent control are well documented: new construction is discouraged, landlords skimp on maintenance, and buildings are abandoned when rent no longer covers insurance and taxes. However, the real issue about rent control is that it is a "taking," in the sense of the Fifth Amendment, and it is done without just compensation.

The extent to which the Fifth Amendment has been abolished in practice can be seen from some recent words of Senator Joseph Biden: "If [action against takings] were to take place, it would be a multi-million-dollar expense for the taxpayers, if they wanted to continue to regulate the way we now regulate." Senator Biden was saying, in effect, that if the Fifth Amendment were to be obeyed, the government could not afford to continue to take citizens' property without payment. The original purpose of the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment was to limit the size of the government - to keep it to a size the taxpayers were willing to pay for. Abolition of the Fifth Amendment has allowed the government to expand without regard to the rights of the citizens.

These disguised violations of the Fifth Amendment are, for the most part well intended. Wetlands protection was originally established to reduce pollution of waterways. Billboard limitations are intended to beautify highways. Rent control is described as keeping housing affordable for the poor. Nevertheless, they still represent "takings," especially if the rules are changed after someone buys a piece of land. If some good cause is to be served by such a "taking," the owner should be compensated, just as the owner is compensated when land is taken for a highway or some other public purpose.