Eminent domain, the government taking one’s property for a just compensation, and using the land for a public use, can destroy someone’s life or an entire neighborhood. If the government can take control of anyone’s land, the government can take control of the people. Most Americans would say that their home is a cherished land with many extravagant and astonishing memories of their past. Now ask the same Americans if they would be “ok” with someone swooping in and just taking all of those memories, and that land, from them for what they believe is a fair market price. Over 80% of Americans would say that they are not “ok” with someone taking their land, and using it for a public use. Eminent domain is part of the Fifth Amendment of the United
…show more content…
Parker 348 U.S. 26 (1954) to Kohl v. United States 91 U.S. 367 (1875). Today eminent domain being abused is one of the biggest controversies surrounding the Fifth Amendment. Abuse of eminent domain came to the public eye in the 2005 Supreme Court case of Kelo v. The City of New London 545 US 469 (2005). With eminent domain the government has a great power, to take property, history, memories while you just have to stand and watch. The Fifth Amendment is one of the denser amendment’s covering five different topics, all which have led to many debates and interpretations. Eminent domain, in particular, the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation, There are two phrases in particular that have been the most scrutinized; “private property be taken for public use” and “without just compensation”. As argued in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. The City of New London it is undetermined as for what “public use” means. Can a city purchase land and sell it to private investors, if it is helping the poor economy of a region? The answer is yes, a city can use its eminent domain powers to gain land and sell …show more content…
While people have tried to protest with the government about how they manage the system, no one has been able to change, but people have gotten it to the point of the Supreme Court, where they could have seen change happen. The rulings of the three most famous cases involving eminent domain, Kohl, Kelo, and Berman, have all ended the same way, in the favor of the defendant. In the 1875 case of Kohl v. United States, where Kohl was petitioning the government’s right to eminent domain. If the Court had decided that Kohl was right, there would be no eminent domain, controversy, or debates. There would be no one’s memories, house, property taken away. Yet the Court ruled in favor of the United States, and eminent domain remained. If the Supreme Court realized how many issues they would encounter in the future, such as the Parker and Kelo cases, America would be a much different country. In 1945, Congress passed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act, creating the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency. The agency’s single objective was to take the run down parts of Washington, D.C. and rebuild them to a higher standard. Berman had his pharmacy seized just like many other shop and landowners in the neighborhood. However, Berman and others believed that the Act had violated the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause and that they should not have been able to take their land. The
Parker 348 U.S. 26 (1954) to Kohl v. United States 91 U.S. 367 (1875). Today eminent domain being abused is one of the biggest controversies surrounding the Fifth Amendment. Abuse of eminent domain came to the public eye in the 2005 Supreme Court case of Kelo v. The City of New London 545 US 469 (2005). With eminent domain the government has a great power, to take property, history, memories while you just have to stand and watch. The Fifth Amendment is one of the denser amendment’s covering five different topics, all which have led to many debates and interpretations. Eminent domain, in particular, the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation, There are two phrases in particular that have been the most scrutinized; “private property be taken for public use” and “without just compensation”. As argued in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. The City of New London it is undetermined as for what “public use” means. Can a city purchase land and sell it to private investors, if it is helping the poor economy of a region? The answer is yes, a city can use its eminent domain powers to gain land and sell …show more content…
While people have tried to protest with the government about how they manage the system, no one has been able to change, but people have gotten it to the point of the Supreme Court, where they could have seen change happen. The rulings of the three most famous cases involving eminent domain, Kohl, Kelo, and Berman, have all ended the same way, in the favor of the defendant. In the 1875 case of Kohl v. United States, where Kohl was petitioning the government’s right to eminent domain. If the Court had decided that Kohl was right, there would be no eminent domain, controversy, or debates. There would be no one’s memories, house, property taken away. Yet the Court ruled in favor of the United States, and eminent domain remained. If the Supreme Court realized how many issues they would encounter in the future, such as the Parker and Kelo cases, America would be a much different country. In 1945, Congress passed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act, creating the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency. The agency’s single objective was to take the run down parts of Washington, D.C. and rebuild them to a higher standard. Berman had his pharmacy seized just like many other shop and landowners in the neighborhood. However, Berman and others believed that the Act had violated the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause and that they should not have been able to take their land. The