Case Study: Carson's Right To Fight Against The Seizing Of Property

America's government system is powerful. One way the government flexes their muscles is through eminent domain. Eminent domain is the government's power to seize land from one and give it over to another. Most times, eminent domain is used to improve the city. There are a lot of tensions between whether eminent domain is morally right or even constitutional.

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

Imagine getting a visitor at your front door, and the visitor offers you a very generous amount of money for them to take you property for public use. For some people it is the property they grew up on, and for others it is the property that has been passed down through family generations. That is what happens when private property owners experience eminent domain. Eminent domain can be a wonderful thing for big companies and powerful leaders. On the other hand, people lose their homes, or perhaps their farmland. Those who offer eminent domain often have big plans that can benefit a community, but the huge loss here is people losing their homes. Most companies will only enforce eminent domain if they have no other choice. Other companies do it purely for themselves. Eminent domain should be used for the good of mankind, because it has the power to put some good places in this world if done correctly.

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

there have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be

The decision carried out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education did wonders for the civil rights movement. By ending legal segregation and robbing it of its moral legitimacy, Brown showed that the law was on the side of black Americans. Political cartoons for as long as they have existed, have enabled the public and those less literate to stay informed on current cases and political events. With a (lower literacy rate) compared to those of their white American counterpart, these political cartoons were an excellent way to convey the importance of the Brown v. Board case in a visual rather than written way.

The constitution puts it out clear that the person whose private property has been seized for public use is entitled to just compensation, which is a fair current cash market value of the property in question. This is quoted to be the price that a willing buyer would give and a willing seller would accept for the property. This is why it is referred to as the fair price because it was where the buyer and seller would reach at a consensus. Eminent Domain has affected very many people across all the counties in the United States of America each and every year. One such instance is that which occurred in 2002 in Long Beach, NJ.

The taking of land refers “to government seizure, regulation, or intrusion on private property for which the owner is entitled to compensations under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). There is also regulatory takings, which is the “newly enforceable restrictions on the use of ones property, such as a newly adopted restrictions on building in certain areas of wetlands.” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). All over the world governments take private land from its owners to benefit the public. In the United States it is called emanated domain, and has been a controversial issue till this day. By evaluating the case of Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council of 1992 and evaluating the two types of regulatory action that automatically trigger compensation as takings; the dissent object to the takings approach laid out by the majority in this case; cities ability to take private property and transfer it to private developers for the sake of economic revitalization; the ethical issues surrounding the principle of using eminent domain to take away the property ownership rights of individuals; and the feeling I would have if the government was to take my land.

The power of eminent domain was originally solely exclusive to the federal government. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this power to the states, but Supreme Court decisions in the 1870s “refused to extend the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment,” and consequently, abuse of the power was common (Jost). Twenty eight years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “just compensation” clause was applied to the states by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, in which the Bill of Rights was declared to also apply to the actions of state governments in an attempt to stop the series of uncompensated takings and other abuses. These abuses continue

The Supreme Court was faced with a unique paradox during the case Salazar V. Buono; in which their ruling had to coincide with the establishment clause in the first amendment, while avoiding the dissenting opinions of thousands of veterans and their families they threatened to insult with their decision. In 1934, the VFW commissioned a white cross to be constructed on an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve. In 1999, the plaintiff, Frank Buono, requested for the NPS to tear down the cross on the grounds that it was in severe violation of the Establishment Clause. The ensuing mess and final ruling seemingly defined the distinction between governmental and religious separation, while also confirming Congress’s

The project was unable to obtain investments and its plans were abandoned in the end. The promises of new jobs and an increased tax revenue were all forsaken. Today, the property that was once a neighborhood for families, is a vacant property with no beneficial purpose to the community that it was meant to serve. American’s view of eminent domain, because of the Susette Kelo case, have changed dramatically since seeing the results from the economic project in New London. More Americans believe that eminent domain should only be exercised in the case of benefiting the public and not for the purpose of advancing economic activities of private parties. The case of Kelp V. New London explains how important it is as public administrators to view and interpret policies to make better decisions on how the process of implementation can better serve the needs of society for the greater

There is much more civilized manners of going about obtaining land. This could include negotiation. If the government wants land they should not take citizens lands that they have worked for, maybe for most of their lives to obtain. I do not see this as fair or civilized. The only time that I believe it is acceptable to have eminent domain would be when it is being used for military use (Iowa Web).

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) Mr. John Barron (Plaintiff), sued the city of Baltimore, Maryland (Defendant) for taking his property without compensation. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had ruined his wharf in the Baltimore Harbor by redirecting the streams by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project (1). The plaintiff argued that the city’s activities had made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most water crafts. As a result, the plaintiff felt his Fifth Amendment right had been violated because the government took his property without just compensation. The state court of Maryland ruled that the city of Baltimore had unconstitutionally disadvantaged

Mr. Higgins stated they records showing that they were doing the exact same service in their brick and mortars. Her e-storefront and the service she was offering did not qualify as being novel.

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which helped define the concept of Federalism in the United States in U.S. constitutional law. The Court established a precedent that the United States Bill of Rights could not be applied to state