The Takes Clause Of The Fifth Amendment

1608 Words 7 Pages
Land has been an integral part of culture since the beginning of time. From the Homestead Act to the modern real estate development age, we care about where we live. We showed through the American Revolution that we are willing to fight for the land we love. However, under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment we are prevented from this specific action, fighting for something we love. The Takings Clause states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (US Const. Amend. V, sec. 3) The fifth amendment fails to protect the individual from the unjust seizure of land from the government, for there is no clause that allows for protecting one’s land if not compelled to sell. Even when given the right, the …show more content…
In 1776, the Revolutionary War was fought to give us the rights and the land we love. Through the Frontier Movement, settlers sought to establish a sea to sea exploration and development of the West. Publishing Homestead Act and other such land grabs, the U.S. government inspired a procession of settlement from Savannah to San Francisco. In all of this, the incentive was the acquisition of land, all of the exploration, the settlement was pushed by the idea of personal property. To finally have something they could call their own and that thought drew …show more content…
The Union, on Sherman’s Great March to the Sea, were imposing a policy of destruction, destroy anything and everything on their way to Savannah. Yet, when they reach the Tara Manor, they are turned away from razing it to the ground. For Gerald comes to the front and stands in the doorway, "as if an army stood behind him instead of in front of him." (Mitchell 287) He doesn’t let them touch his land or his family, and the army heeds his regards and instead use the building as a union headquarters.
His tie to his land was more than just for his own economic prosperity, it was personal. Land is a tie between man and nature, a thing he can build a legacy upon; something wars are fought about, something people have worshiped. That was what it meant to Gerald O’Hara, no sum of money would have parted him and his precious Tara. Why should he have to sell? He worked for that land, his blood, sweat and tears fought for it, it was his home. Yet under the Takings Clause, he would have to sell it, no matter how important it was to him. The right to property is a sacred right that nobody should be allowed to

Related Documents