What is property?” 
Is government grant an asset? What is property?” The government should not require people to give their homes if those houses were seized by force (a civil seizure), or if an “asset” was acquired by force (a criminal seizure). 
Is government grant an asset? What is property?” The government should not confiscate anything unless a court determines that an existing legal right to that property is no longer in force. 
Are there government seizures?
The Civil Right and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide that “[i]t shall not be a crime for a person to be deprived of his property without due process of law.”  The same principle is incorporated by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says “[n]ormal process means a judicial or other lawful process by which the government establishes the matter in issue and, on its own motion, orders a change in the status of a person or entity.” 
So whether the government has the power to take something away from a landowner under either of those two clauses depends on how it treats those rights. If a defendant is convicted of a crime under the 14th Amendment, his property may be forfeited to the government — even though he never actually committed a crime, and even though he had a good defense. If a defendant is convicted of a crime under the Fifth Amendment, he would, however, likely have a claim for compensation — if the court determines he has been denied his constitutional right to due process.
How much authority, legal and social, does the federal government have to take property from someone? The Constitution’s text gives very little. For instance, it says nothing about how the government might use such eminent domain powers — for example, “the proceeds of the said sale or other disposition of property . . . for the payment of any debt or obligation of the United States.”  Nor does the Constitution mention any authority with respect to taxes, or the government’s ability to tax or collect other taxes. It says nothing about a person’s rights in a land use — in other words, nothing about what a person or state can do with that use.
But the very word “taking” suggests more than taking things away. It implies that the government is moving something toward ownership. It makes that implication plain, especially when you consider that the state has traditionally used eminent domain to