I am aghast and agape at your offhanded interpretation of the constitution and the law in general. There is an area of study known as constitutional law which interprets the meaning of words and phrases in the constitution. Further, I don't see it all melting down into anarchy in a hurry.
Well done for finding the provision though.
The government cannot take property arbitrarily and without compensation. The amount of compensation is another issue and it is true that there can be disputes on the fairness of the valuations.
I'm amazed at your assertion that the US constitution is "totally irrelevant in the US today". Sorry? You might find some of the interpretations difficult, as their judiciary is very politicised, but irrelevant? Far from it.
Phew. I guess this is a discussion board so all views can be aired, but I find the dismissal of the judiciary and the constitution both difficult to understand, and at best a little premature.
cheers
DV
PS the High Court spends an inordinate amount of time implying terms into the constitution. There are rules about how this is done, it is not arbitrary at all. They have for instance, found an implied right to free speech in certain circumstances, but it is not as strong as the express right as in the US first amendment. Sorry but I can't be bothered going into it, but trust me, individuals do have rights under our constitution.
