The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case: The Saver Act

1211 Words null Page
Today, the Court reverses both rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. First, the Court will address the property issue. The Saver Act does not comply with the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. The Court needs to return to a more classic reading of the Public Use Clause. The Pennsylvania governments’ seizure of land falls under the public benefit, not the public use. There is an extremely loose association between the laws intention and the public benefit. The core of the Saver Act takes property from Mr. Dime with the intention of distributing it to a corporation. Any public benefit is indirect and hypothetical by nature.
There are also concerns about the potential precedent that could be set. A different ruling could greatly weaken
…show more content…
Justice Thomas listed St. Paul Minnesota and Baltimore Maryland as examples. Between 1949 and 1963, 63 percent of all families removed were nonwhites. 38 percent were whites with low enough incomes to apply for public housing. The Saver Act would damage less privileged citizen’s claim to land. It threatens any private citizen’s claim to their private property. In Midkiff v. Hawaii there was a dangerous concentration of land ownership that clearly threatened the public welfare. 72 citizens owned 47% of the state. The land was monopolized. In Berman, the neighborhood was damaged beyond repair. There are several instances where government …show more content…
The Kelo ruling was fatally flawed. In the majority opinion Justice Stevens took it upon himself to amend a phrase of the Constitution that went against his opinion. Justice Stevens wrote that by the turn of the century “public use” now means “public purpose”. Justice Stevens also writes that in Kelo property is not being taken from private citizen A and given private citizen B. However, today the Court disagrees with that assessment. In Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash the Court stated, “the taking must be for a ‘public use’ and ‘just compensation’ must be payed to the owner” At the Constitutional Convention Alexander Hamilton stated that protecting the private property of citizens was one of the great objectives of government. The Saver Act is going against Hamilton’s idea. The Saver Act would give property to the Quaker State Development Company. No clear and obvious public use exists so it falls under Justice Stevens’s example (O’Brien

Related Documents