ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Eminent Domain in the 5th Amendment

Updated on December 19, 2012
Source

Do you agree with Justice Stevens' Opinion or Justice O'Connor's Dissent

See results

by Amber Maccione

Eminent Domain

In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the city decided to seize private property from Kelo and some other residents in which they turned around to sell that seized property to private developers in hopes of creating new jobs and boosting the economy in their area. Kelo sued the city saying that the city violated the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Davis 2008 p. 354). (Kelo v. City of New London 2012).

The question that was brought before the Supreme Court was, “Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development with the hopes the development will help the city’s bad economy?” (Kelo v. City of New London 2012). The majority was a 5-4 vote with Justice Stevens giving the opinion. Stevens stated that what the city had done did qualify for public use because the city wasn’t taking the private property for personal gain but rather to help with an economic development plan to help boost the economy in that area. He stated that the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause did not need to be interpreted literally but could be interpreted with a “broader and more natural interpretation of ‘public use’ as ‘public purpose’” (Kelo v. City of New London 2012).

Justice O’Connor, on the other hand, gave the dissent saying that the city did violate the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause because the Constitution should be interpreted literally (Rappa 2005). She used the cases of Berman [city seized property deemed as blighted to help with beautifying the city and Supreme Court ruled in city’s favor (Berman v. Parker 2012)] and Midkiff [the Land Reform Act of 1967 which took land from lessors and gave it to the lessees and the Supreme Court ruled that this oligopoly did not violate 5th Amendment’s Public Use Clause (Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 2012)] to state that the purpose in these cases was to eliminate harm not for economic development (Rappa 2005). In saying this, she pointed out that ruling in the city’s favor, the Supreme Court was rendering the Takings Clause meaningless and removing any effective check on the eminent domain power (Rappa 2005).

I agree with the dissent by Justice O’Connor. I think that the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause should have been interpreted literally. Seizing private property to sell to private developers (whether to “build the economy” or not) does not qualify for public use. Public use as I understand it is taking property to create something that will be useful to the public. If the government takes private land and then turns around to sell it to a private developer the government is benefiting, not the public. Yes, jobs may be created but that is not in the government’s hands but rather now in a private company’s hands. The eminent domain requires that the property seize must be used for public use and in this case I did not see public use demonstrated but rather the government profiting through a loophole of “let’s not take the literal interpretation, but let’s stretch it out to a broader meaning so we can get what we want.”

References

(2 November 2012) Berman v. Parker. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1954/1954_22

(3 November 2012) Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_141

(4 November 2012) Kelo v. City of New London. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/

2004_04_108

Davis, S. (2008). Corwin and Peltason’s Understanding the Constitution (17th ed.).

Belmont: Thomason Higher Education.

Rappa, J. (26 July 2005). Kelo v. City of New London. OLR Research Report. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0560.htm

Copyright © 2012 http://ambercita04.hubpages.com/

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • ambercita04 profile imageAUTHOR

      Amber 

      5 years ago from Winter Park

      Yes, that is true and Kelo was compensated. The issue with this case was in whether or not they were using it for public use. There are two parts to this Taking Clause. Part 1 says they have to give just compensation. Part 2 says it has to be for public use. And in this case it looked like the government used a loop hole/twisted the truth to get what they wanted. I do not believe taking someone's property to increase jobs fits into the Taking Clause.

    • jose7polanco profile image

      Jose Misael Polanco 

      5 years ago from Los Angeles

      As far as i know, the government can take private property after paying a just compensation for it or after confiscating it by due process of law.

      Great to see you writing about several different topics.

      Good hub.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)