Article XVII of the Declaration of Rights of Man and of Citizens (France):
"Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of private usage, if it is not when the public necessity, legally noted, evidently requires it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity."
Today's ruling is one more example of the terrible paradox that America is a great country with terrible laws and a terrible legal system. US Americans would be better off with French law than with their own random and reckless judicial regime.
Today's ruling is one more example of the terrible paradox that America is a great country with terrible laws and a terrible legal system. US Americans would be better off with French law than with their own random and reckless judicial regime.
Other than the flowery language, I don't see how this is different from the US description. Both proclaim private property, except when the government needs it and pays fully for it.
The problem is that liberal judges have eviscerated the plain meaning. The government gets it if it wants it for whatever reason it wants to use, and pays what it wishes.
Considering the French scandals with money from Saddam and other troubles, I'm sure that your politicians know their way around the flowery language you quoted. It's probably easier for them, as the French have a wider view of what's a valid government purpose than does much of the US.