The Judicial Branch of the American Government as a Protector of Private Property

The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.

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..."

Definition: the power vested in an appellate court to review/revise the decision of a lower court

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

This document indicates how the value and the role of the Supreme Court revolved over the course of American history. The idea of separation power and three branches of government wasn’t as clear as it is today. In fact, when the United States was first established, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, no one was clear on to what extend should the judicial power be

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. Initially, this public policy originated in the Middle Ages throughout the world. It became part of the British common law before reaching the United States where it was then illustrated in the US Constitution in 1791 (Britannica: eminent domain). The Fifth Amendment granted the federal government the right

Examining the View that the Supreme Court is an Effective Protector of Civil Liberties In 1789, the founders of the Constitution set out the power of the Supreme Court in Article III section 2, and, arguably, in the Supremacy clause in Article 6. These clauses gave the Supreme Court the power to protect the Constitution, and by doing so, the power to protect civil liberties. The strength of the Supreme Court is essential in protecting civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also increased its power through court cases and through judicial revolutions.

The tall, thin, aggressive Chief Justice John Marshall continues to dominate our high tribunal. His recent decision- perhaps the most famous- strengthen the power of the federal government at the state's expense. The remarkable case of McCulloch v. Maryland involved an attempt by the State of Maryland to destroy a branch of the Bank of the United States by enforcing a tax on its notes. Marshall, on behalf of the court, declared the bank constitutional. At the same time, he bolstered federal authority and slapped at state infringements, denying the right of Maryland to tax the bank. Chief Marshall affirmed: “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy, that a power to create implies a power to

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

During the 1790’s, Jefferson Republicans had celebrated the will of the people prompting federalist to worry that popular sovereignty would result in “tyranny of the majority”(Henretta, Hinderaker, Edwards Self 242). If state legislatures enacted statutes infringing on the property rights of wealthy citizens, Federalist judges vowed to void them. Marshall was determined to protect the property rights and went against the constitution. In the conflict of Fletcher versus Peck, Marshall expanded the era. With this, the supreme court ruled that a grant to a private land company was a contract within the meaning of the contract clause of the constitution. The property rights of 1810 altered the governments for the better because it gave resourceful and economic goods to individuals, associations, and

property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

The Federalist Papers are an insight into the federal court system of the United States through the interpretation of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Through their understanding of the federal court system, we are aided in making our own connections and analysis ' to better understand how the system works. More specifically, in Hamilton 's essay #78, he essentially claims that the federal judiciary isn 't given enough authority to properly do their job. He also makes note that the Supreme Court of the United States should have a substantial amount of power over the US Congress, but only in times when Congress has threatened the

Land has been an integral part of culture since the beginning of time. From the Homestead Act to the modern real estate development age we care about where we live. We showed in the American Revolution that we are willing to fight for the land we love. However, under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment we are prevented from this specific action, fighting for something we love. The Takings Clause states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (US Const. Amend. V, sec. 3) The fifth amendment fails to protect the individual from the unjust seizure of land from the government, for there is no clause that allows for protecting one’s land if not compelled to sell. Even when given the right, the government, as seen through past landmark cases, has a very crooked definition of public use.

The Fourth Amendment allows U.S. citizen to feel secure. And that security is not going to change because the fourth amendment is “set in stone” (salon.com, 2013). Obama did speak on the security of phone calls and he said the government looks at the duration phone calls and their numbers. However, he did go on to say “This program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by Congress, but by the FISA Court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them and that they’re — it’s being out consistent with the Constitution and rule of law” (www.fednews.com). The Judicial Oversight on the information that the government receives allows citizens to