Life Blood Doctrine

Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent

Should the United States government be allowed to seize property from you without any explanation or compensation? That is a question many people in the U.S. are asking themselves today. Eminent domain should not be allowed in the United States for several reasons. People own buildings that they do not want destroyed because they are family dwellings or places of business. People have money invested in the buildings and the property they sit on and do not feel it is right to lose it to the government. There are also the property owners who want to protect their property because it has been handed down in their family for many generations.

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.

"Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one may be deprived of it except when public necessity..."

In fact, the U.S. civil and property rights have a legal hierarchical organization, where the property rights stay in between the constitutional power and individual civil rights. In the 5th Amendment, the aspect of private property is mentioned as “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”(1273). This is the clearest example of private property protection in the United States and its initial value. Besides, the Declaration of Independence relates the property rights to the issues of equality and the

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.

While the Government holds complete authority over the owner's property, they guarantee fair and adequate compensation for the owner in the event which he or she forced out of their property - this is the law. As well as offering fair and adequate compensation, the Government may not take or begin construction on the property until definite arrangements have been made for payments (Sargent and Wallace 6-9). However, landowners are not always forced off of their property. Many times the families living in these areas were moved because of the tremendous property damage, flood damage, or the fact that their land interferred with government property (BonaLaw 1). When land is purchased through the Government the landowner is offered “Just Compensation,” meaning that the owners of the property will be offered the highest selling price that their land will sell for (Sargent and Wallace

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

To remain in the positive area of eminent domain, most of the time this law is not used until the last possible resort. Many opportunities are given to a person or land owner to take compensation in various amounts and give up the land. It’s not something that happens after five minutes of the arrival of the government. It is part of a process and in most areas that process involves a vote by the elected officials in the area, which includes the residents of the area being affected by it. The negative area is easy to see. Part of the Bill of Rights states that “restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime” (Bill of Rights). That means that the army can’t force you to put some soldiers up in your house for the night. Eminent domain is an extension of that action. The government is taking the property and using it as they see fit to use. In most areas eminent domain simply showed up on the books and there was never a word said about it. It was not heard of in some areas until the government used it and put it to action. In order for this to become a positive action some say that more controls and restrictions are needed to be placed upon the laws. It was a set of laws that was needed and enacted and then, as a result, many smaller government areas took advantage of it and began to abuse it. The best way to move forward may not be

In 2005 one of the most divisive cases we had ever heard on the Supreme Court occurred—Kelo v. City of New London. After a decade of the 5-4 decision I still get questions about this case. By far eminent domain has been one of most complex and controversial aspects of in our nation’s history.

(D) Michigan, 13th acknowledged that eminent domain could precipitate adverse consequences. For example, the city of Detroit striped homeowners’ of their land, to give it to the auto industry. In addition, the representative expressed concern that eminent domain proportionally affects African Americans, Latinos, and Asian American more. Furthermore, Conyers warns the federal government to not act without respecting the principles of federalism and to study any legislation that affects people. In turn, Congress must also allow states to create their own eminent domain laws, for it is a state matter.

The Court rebutted with the fact that economic development is a recognized public use, and that sometimes the greatest benefit for the public is to have the land developed by an agency other than a government agency (Kelo v. New London, 2005). The Petitioner's countered that without such a “bright-line” rule a government could take private land and transfer it to someone else who would put the property to more use and therefore increase the tax revenue of the property. The Court argued that may be true in cases where there was no clear development plan, but in this case the City had developed an integrated development plan (Kelo v. New London, 2005). Finally, the Petitioner’s argued that if a government was going to exercise eminent domain that the public should be guaranteed with some “reasonable certainty” that the proposed benefits would in fact come to pass. For this the Court refused to speculate to the effectiveness of the City’s plan, and argued that once the Court had determined if an economic development plan was a “public use” as laid out in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, that their job was complete (Kelo v. New London,

first look at the validity of the court and of the entity of authority itself.

These days there have been many issues surrounding the topic of private property and eminent domain. I feel that eminent domain is a good way to keep the needs of the community and each person’s individual property rights balanced. Even though I believe individual property rights are more important that the needs of the community, I also believe the government sometimes has to take that property away for the better good of the community. At the same time I also understand how people feel when they talk about “NIMBY” (not in my back yard), and also about their personal needs.