Saver Act Case Study

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 an individual’s claims to private property Mr. Dime only pays $575 of state taxes. This law could potentially allow states to seize land when they do not …show more content…
Mr. Dime is a man who owns one of the few Main Street businesses that have not relinquished their land to the federal government. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) the Court unanimously struck down the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act as a violation of free speech. The Court’s per curiam opinion made it clear that First Amendment rights do not allow a State to, “to forbid or proscribe advocacy of use of force or of law violation….”(O’Brien 483). Pennsylvania is a state and has no Constitutional or case law basis for the Sedition Act. In Brandenburg, The Syndicalism statute banned people from expressing their violent views about minorities (O’Brien 483). Advocacy of unpopular positions and forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment. Pennsylvania’s police powers also do not apply in this case because Mr. Dime’s statements were not threatening in any way. There truly is no justification for Mr. Dime’s prosecution. The Court reverses the ruling of the Pennsylvania State Supreme