Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
3 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
POL 303 Week 5 DQ 1 Eminent Domain
|
POL 303 Week 5 DQ 1 Eminent Domain Eminent Domain. In 2005 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a city taking private property, while paying the owner just compensation, and selling it to a private developer as part of a plan to stimulate the city's weak economy (Kelo v. City of New London). Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post: Explain the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo (the majority opinion by Justice Stevens). Explain the rationale of Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion. Evaluate both the majority and minority rationales. Explain and justify your evaluation. Include consideration of these factors: § The Supreme Court’s traditional approach to the “public use” requirement for takings § The relative competence of the Supreme Court vs. local governments to determine what is a “public use” to justify the taking of private property
|
|
|
POL 303 Week 5 DQ 1 Eminent Domain
http://www.fres-courses.com/product/pol-303-week-5-dq-1-eminent-domain |
POL 303 Week 5 DQ 1 Eminent Domain Eminent Domain. In 2005 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a city taking private property, while paying the owner just compensation, and selling it to a private developer as part of a plan to stimulate the city's weak economy (Kelo v. City of New London). Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post: Explain the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo (the majority opinion by Justice Stevens). Explain the rationale of Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion. Evaluate both the majority and minority rationales. Explain and justify your evaluation. Include consideration of these factors: § The Supreme Court’s traditional approach to the “public use” requirement for takings § The relative competence of the Supreme Court vs. local governments to determine what is a “public use” to justify the taking of private property
|
|
|
POL 303 Week 5 DQ 1 Eminent Domain
http://www.fres-courses.com/product/pol-303-week-5-dq-1-eminent-domain |
POL 303 Week 5 DQ 1 Eminent Domain Eminent Domain. In 2005 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a city taking private property, while paying the owner just compensation, and selling it to a private developer as part of a plan to stimulate the city's weak economy (Kelo v. City of New London). Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post: Explain the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo (the majority opinion by Justice Stevens). Explain the rationale of Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion. Evaluate both the majority and minority rationales. Explain and justify your evaluation. Include consideration of these factors: § The Supreme Court’s traditional approach to the “public use” requirement for takings § The relative competence of the Supreme Court vs. local governments to determine what is a “public use” to justify the taking of private property
|
