of sovereign immunity in a case is simply an attribute of government, not an inherent characteristic of a cause of action. The constitutional constraint on government’s power to take private property, on the other hand, arose from the historic power of the English sovereign to seize private property for governmental purposes, with or without the consent of the property owner, and with or without compensation. The salutary inclusion in the list of limitations on government contained in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution that prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation was a response to the claim of the English kings that sovereign rights prevailed over private property rights. The Founders thought otherwise — though they recognize F.3d 1354 (Fed.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); McKay v. United States, 199 F.3d 1376
holding that permit denial constituted a categorical taking recognizing categorical taking when regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land holding that denial of development on certain wetlands was not a taking holding that a zoning regulation which deprives property of all economically beneficial or productive use is a categorical regulatory taking holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs