1. Identify a real problem
2. Propose an unrealistic and thoroughly inefficient way to solve it then cling to this false solution for dear life
I refer, of course, to the issue of property rights. Yes, we have serious problems in this country (and in the US, and elsewhere) with finding ways to restrain governments from depriving property owners of the use and/or enjoyment of their property without proper compensation. Especially through regulations. I don’t need to be convinced we have a serious problem. But you know what? Believing that if only we enshrined property rights in the Constitution it would help us save that problem is, not to put too fine a point on it, magic thinking.
Freedom of speech is in the Constitution. Did that help Ezra Levant? Freedom of conscience is in the Constitution. Did that help Scott Brockie, the printer who got in legal trouble for politely refusing the business of a gay group? Freedom of association is in the Constitution. Yet you have no right to refuse to pay union dues.
Our right to life is in the Constitution. Does that prevent abortion on demand?
So. What makes you think sticking property rights in the Constitution is going to help any? I’m not against constitutional protection for property rights. It’s not wrong in principle. But I’m not naive enough to believe it would solve anything.