Final answer:
Seizing Sarah's property without compensation does violate the 5th Amendment, which requires just compensation when property is taken for public use.
Step-by-step explanation:
Sarah's property being seized by the government without compensation is a violation of the 5th Amendment. The Takings Clause of the Amendment stipulates that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. This constitutional guarantee supports individuals' economic rights and ensures that property taken under the exercise of eminent domain provides an essential benefit to the community at a fair and equitable value to the property owner. The landmark Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London, clarified that the concept of 'public use' could include economic development that benefits a community, but compensation must still be provided to the property owners.
Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the government has the power of eminent domain, which allows them to take private property for public use. However, this power is subject to the requirement of just compensation. Therefore, if Sarah's property is seized by the government for public use without any compensation, it would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.