under Goldberg is procedural in nature and differs from a substantive property interest). Recipients of government benefits generally do not have a substantive property right to have these benefits continue. Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 80-1, 92 S.Ct. 254, 257, 30 L.Ed.2d 231 (1971) (stating that “expectation of public benefits [does not] confer a contractual right to receive expected amounts----the analogy between social welfare and ‘property,’ [Goldberg] 397 U.S., at 267 n. 8, 90 S.Ct. at 1017, cannot be stretched to impose a constitutional limitation on the power of Congress to make substantive changes in the law of entitlements to public benefits.”). See also Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Sec. Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 2390, 91 L.Ed.2d 35 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Instead, individual recipients have merely
holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that taxes are not takings unless the government tries to achieve through special taxes what the takings clause of the fifth amendment forbids if done directly holding that rights in a government benefits program were not vested property for purposes of the takings clause of the fifth amendment holding the takings clause inapplicable to the states of its own force