What Is Eminent Domain

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

If there is no other way to handle the situation, then the legal owners should be compensated monetarily for the loss of the physical property and any loss of revenue. On the Other hand, those in the judicial system claiming that eminent domain aids in the capture and conviction of criminals who could be a danger to society. They state that in many instances imposing eminent domain gives them the right to search and seize property, thus gathering evidence to convict criminals and placing the property out of their reach for future use. In conclusion, the topic of eminent domain is one that people have strong feelings about because it has long term effects on those involved. There can be many emotions involved since it involves money and

The main argument presented by O’Conner involved the Constitution on how the citizens have protection from the government abusing their power against eminent domain. She presented an argument on how it’s like a reverse Robin Hood because the rich take from the poor and give back to the rich. If the City of New London was to be allowed to do this that other cities all over the United States would be doing the same and that this would become the norm giving homeowners no rights and no protection against this happening. Homeowners would then be given the sense that no private property is safe from eminent domain seizures.

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.

Eminent Domain is the government's right under the Fifth Amendment to acquire privately owned property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse. Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value. In recent years, there has been much debate over the appropriateness of eminent domain, and further its legality in specific instances. The government is allowed to seize personal property for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good". There have been many cases brought up against the government in attempt to regulate the government's power in seizing private property. There is a political push for reform to the eminent

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.

Many philosophers have written arguments advocating for all types of property rights ranging from private to communal and for a varying array of reasons.Personally, I feel Schmidtz has the most compelling argument surrounding property rights. He argues for private property rights. According to Schmidtz when property does not have an owner and instead belongs to the commons, there is no way to protect that resource. Schmidtz provides the example of fishing using destructive methods. In certain countries, fishermen fish using methods that destroy habitats such as throwing dynamite or bleach in the water. This method has an extremely successful one time effect as all the dead fish float to the top of the water. However, it kills the entire habitat

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

Would you be okay with the government taking your house and relocating you even if it meant that you got compensated for the sacrifice you are doing. This is known as eminent domain. What is eminent domain policy to be more specific? This is most often used with land property. Some that have never seen it in action will not fully understand how it truly works. Here is an example to help clarify. A highway is being made through a portion of a town and one person or family is refusing to sell their land/home. Eminent domain gives the government the right to forcibly remove the owner and cease their land even if the land owner doesn’t agree to it. The government then will, even in this case, provide compensation for the land that it takes in the

Facts: New London used their authority to take other individuals private property to try and sell them to some other private developers. The city of New London also thought that is was a great idea so that it could promote new jobs and that the tax revenues could increase. Kelo whose property was taken from them along with others ended up suing New London in the state court. The owners of the property’s that was taken believed that their Fifth Amendment right was violated, which gave them assurance the government couldn’t take their private property for the use of public without restitution. However the owners of the property put up a good argument about trying to take their private property to try and sell it to other private developers was

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.

I personally feel that this proposed legislation is unconstitutional and infringes on personal rights. I also feel that this proposal conflicts with Republican ideology for less government interference in the daily lives of citizens. For a political party that is so focused on defending privacy and limited government involvement, this proposed legislative directive is very contradictory and hypocritical for what the Republican Party’s ideals stand for. They are in favor of review and revision of the Patriot Act, as well as “related executive and military orders and directives that erode constitutional rights and essential liberties of citizens.” (Republican Party of Texas) The Republicans are choosey as to which constitutional rights and liberties they recognize and protect. The remaining legislative priorities target education, immigration, and tax reform. One item addressed concerning taxes is a request to “reject raising or indexing the gas tax.” (Republican Party of Texas) I agree with this proposition. If gas taxes continue to rise, drivers will undergo a hardship in transportation, especially in Austin because public transportation has not yet successfully evolved to accommodate a city of its size efficiently. Fiscally speaking, overall I agree with the Republican Party’s fundamentals of reducing spending and taxation. Overall, socially I was in opposition with the party’s principals. Specifically, I stand in opposition to the party’s attitudes towards

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.