"You seem to have a very limited understanding of what you are talking about."
I have about as much understanding of what I'm talking about as any other law school graduate, I suppose. I also couldn't help but notice that nothing in your reply actually disagreed with my post.
"Compensation still needs to be given when the government takes private property from its citizens."
We weren't talking about Compensation at any point. We were talking about taking for public use. If you, at this time, want to change the topic to discuss compensation, I am happy to do that.
"The issuance of warrants is not uncommon in FDIC conservatorships."
Agreed to everything you said here on the topic.
"Now considering that the government has already reaped in excess of nearly 70 billion over what was dispersed to the companies, another 200 hundred billion from the warrants would certainly lead to future takings lawsuits."
I might not totally agree with this. I could see arguments that would likely spur future takings lawsuits, yes...but I don't know that they'd have much leg to stand on. If the issuing of the warrants are constitutional, then the exercising of the warrants must be, logically speaking, constitutional. The excess 70 billion is a matter of lawsuits around the NWS, not a takings. Amendment 3 is a contractual agreement. The lawsuit would need to be based in the claim that the contract is void or illegal. I don't relate that directly to a taking. In addition, any contractual lawsuits would probably be limited to the 70 billion dollars...not the warrant related 200 billion.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
