[Knitebane]

The reason that property rights aren't directly mentioned in the Constitution is because the founders provided an indirect method on insuring property rights.

Originally, only land owners could vote. If only land owners control the government, property rights would likely be kept quite safe.

[RightWhale]

A valid point. Maybe it wasn't fair to all persons, but it was workable. What we have now has been undermined and in process of collapse.

[KC Burke]

I think in my post above we see the place that Property played in the State Constitutions and the founders saw the state arena as the place for Property, contract law, statute and common law and even capital crimes. The formation of the Federal Government was done with a very limited scope planned for that creature.

Federal protection and action would have been a lessening of State Government and its local responsiveness and control that would have been unthinkable.

We don't need to add protection but instead, we need to limit Federal involvement and "takings".