Case Analysis: The Williamsburg Case

The city of New London was in an economic depression and came up with a plan to buy properties and make it commercial, residential and a recreational element to it. They city was able to buy most of the properties but some landowners refused to sell their property. So the city used element of domain power to take the property. Kelo one of the landowners decided to sue. Their main argument was that the cities plan didn’t involve public use, which is what element of domain is used for. The Supreme Court ruled that the cities plan had public benefit so they upheld the cities decision to use element of domain and took the property.

The case of Kelo vs. City of New London generated major controversy that reached its way up to the Supreme Court. In addition, it has been the first major case involving eminent domain since 1984. Eminent domain is defined as “the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation”. The City of New London approved a development plan in 2000 that was “projected to create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city”, according to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. In almost all economic development, development agents purchase property from willing sellers. When it comes to property owners who are a little more reluctant bartering over their

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision of Warford v. Lexington News-Herald is an example of how the court defined an assistant basketball coach at the University of Pittsburgh as a private figure. Reggie Warford complained about allegations of recruiting improperties that he committed as an assistant basketball coach. The issue at hand was originally posted in the 1985 Lexington Herald, but were reprinted in 1986 under a special NCAA reprint publication entitled 1985: A Year of Crisis in College Athletics. The 1986 publication is the source of the libel dispute.

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard V. Snyder set a precedent since the Court concluded the comprehensive plan, provides for future land use through gradual and ordered growth, and it is not a literal guide. Thus, Local governments have the discretion to decide that certain land uses should be denied, even if they comply with comprehensive plan guidelines.

On past occasions, the Supreme Court Justices have upheld takings that ultimately resulted in a private party possessing the land. This has occurred, for example, to allow the development of a plot of land that holds future benefits to the local economy, and in instances of urban renewal, where a new neighborhood goes up in place of an old and blighted one. The court case Kelo v. City of New London was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London to heed its future economic development plans. The leading plaintiff Susette Kelo, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled

In Israel on the Appomattox author Melvin Patrick Ely uses the case study of Prince Edward County, Virginia, to shift the historiography surrounding the treatment of free blacks in the Antebellum South. While the current historiography paints the Antebellum South as attempting to subjugate free blacks into a system “‘as near to slaver as possible’” (p. 437), Ely posits that because of the existence of black slavery “Southern whites felt secure enough to deal fairly and even respectfully with free African Americans” (p. x). And though Ely agrees that “laws and public statements about free blacks in the Old South constitute a sordid parade of mean-spiritedness” (p. 436), the actual behavior of white citizens of Prince Edward County rarely align with “the path their social ideology prescribed” (p. 440). In going against the previously well-established understanding of the relationship between free blacks and whites, Ely has placed upon himself the large onus of disproving so many who have come before him, and the approach he takes within Israel on the Appomattox is as fascinating as it is convincing.

Facts: Plaintiffs Carl and Elaine Miles, owners and impresarios of “Blackie, The Talking Cat” brought a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the S.D. Georgia, challenging the constitutionality of the Augusta, GA, Business License Ordinance. They complained that the ordinance was inapplicable in their case “accepting contributions from pedestrian in the downtown Augusta area, who wanted to hear the cat speak “and that the ordinance violates the rights of speech. The Plaintiffs attacked the ordinance as being unconstitutional and overbroad in contravention of the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the U.S. Supreme Court answered “yes” to the question of whether or not taking land for the sole purpose of economic improvement would fall into the realm of public use requirement set forth in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

According to the facts, it seems that the sentiment of John (Cougar) Mellencamp's hit in the 1984 fueled the controversies basing on the court’s decision on June 23, 2005. The ruling stated that the local government or federal government was entitled to exercise eminent dominant rules to enable them acquire private property and utilize it for purposes of economic development. “Eminent domain also referred to as condemnation, is the act of taking private property and making it public property by the local governing authority, state, or federal government” (Bradley 65). The private property taken away is converted to public property for public use.

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

Facts: Newton Cantwell, along with his two sons, are arrested and convicted for soliciting money without a license. The three were soliciting money to benefit their faith (Jehovah’s Witnesses). Under Connecticut law, soliciting for money, no matter the purpose, requires a state issued license. Whether someone obtains a license is under the purview of the secretary of the Public Welfare Council. The criteria for an approved license is “whether ‘the cause is a religious one’ or one of a ‘bona fide object of charity.’”

After Emperor Penguins lay their eggs and let them hatch, both the father and the mother live very separate lives. In the end, however, they reconcile to care for the baby who needs attention after birth; the father provides warmth in his nest while the mother hunts for resources. While these Arctic birds live separate lives after they give birth to a baby, they still recognize their duties to their growing child who seeks attention and nurture from their parents. Such a model of parenting, however, is obsolete in modern day America, where parents assume themselves to be relieved of financial obligations once their child reaches the age of eighteen. Such is the case of Rebecca Johnson, where parents are reluctant to pay for their child’s tuition.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” - Proverbs 29:18. So the Colonial Williamsburg Capitol was constructed as a vision and a building for leadership. It was a symbol of control and the most important building in Colonial Williamsburg. Without it, there would not be any system for our society to prosper. But if it can adapt to change, the people would follow. Additionally, it is important during colonial times, valuable to citizens today, and connects to the motto “That the future may learn from the past.” For these reasons, the Capitol should receive a 2016 commemorative coin to honor the exhibit’s importance.

of the arrested persons. Some have had their Fourth Amendment rights violated due to searches that were erroneous

In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel The Scarlet Letter, the young Arthur Dimmesdale is a highly respected reverend in 17th century puritanical Massachusetts. However, he is the most morally ambiguous character in the novel because of the one great sin he commits and fails to readily confess. For this, he suffers an internal affliction that destabilizes his physical and spiritual composure. Dimmesdale’s sin was detrimental, but this action cannot qualify him as a bad person because in all other aspects, he is as righteous as the Puritans came. This moral ambiguity of Dimmesdale plays a pivotal role in the novel because it allows the reader to distinguish between true good and evil.