Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Kelo V. New London Judicial Activism
Kelo V. City of New London and Judicial Activism
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) analyzes the issue of eminent domain and the circumstances under which a city or government can use this to seize an individual's property. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), Susette Kelo sued the city of New London claiming that her property, and the properties of her neighbors, were illegally seized because they were not taken to be developed for public use, one of the requirements of eminent domain. Furthermore, Kelo argued that the property seizures were a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments thus rendering them unconstitutional. After analyzing the dissenting views of the Supreme Court Justices that exercised judicial restraint, it is clear that judicial activism was used to define "public use."
Traditionally, judicial activists believe the U.S. Constitution is a living document that allows for interpretative differences. However, many believe that the only thing judicial activists try to do is undermine the responsibilities of legislatures, create a nanny state, be lenient on crimes and...
In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), it is believe that the Supreme Court "abused precedent, reinforcing grave errors by extending the misinterpretation of 'public use' as being the equivalent of 'public purpose.'" (Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., 2013). The ruling against Kelo proved to be a failure not only because her property was seized under this misinterpreted definition of 'public use,' but also because the proposed economic development was never carried out and the seized land ended up being converted into a parking lot thus proving that the land was seized without purpose. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment was reinterpreted too liberally by judicial activists and redefined the term "public good." Dissenting judges believed that "public good" meant that public would be able to use and benefit from the property that was taken, which was not the case. Justice Thomas argued, "States employed the eminent domain power to provide quintessentially public goods,…
References
Eminent Domain: Drawing the Line on Property Rights. (2009, Nov 10). W.P. Carey School
of Business at Arizona State University. Accessed 25 April 2013, from http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824. (accessed April 3, 2012).
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (dissenting opinion). Accessed
Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. (2013). Order in the court: rule of law initiation. The Heritage Foundation. Accessed 25 April 2013, from http://orderinthecourt.org/Cases/Kelo-v-City-of-New-London-Conn.
Accessed 25 April 2013, from http://www.ncsl.org/?Tabid=17627.
In this case, "the government must prove that it tried to negotiate the sale and that the takeover is for public use. If the government wins, an appraiser establishes fair market value and the property owner is paid and evicted," (Bryant n.d.). In cases like KELO et al. v. CITY of NEW LONDON et al., the property owner refused to sell and the matter went to court. In most
.." Bright 83) The utilization of eminent domain has been used to evict individuals to build malls, concentrated housing projects for both the poor and the affluent, and business parks, all of which presumably have higher property tax bases and therefore better serve the community where they are built than the homes that were there previously. Having recently received a grant award, in the amount of 500,000 from the ACLU, Homeowners' Freedom, a
(4) Bell and Parchomovsky 871) This having been said the demand should rest on the public entity to not only prove the public purpose of the eminent domain ruling but also to fairly compensate the owner(s) with regard not only to market value but based on other interests as well. A takings law permits undercompensation whenever the reserve value of the property owner exceeds market price. Second, many important compensation doctrines require
Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain When the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut in February of 2005, the issue legally speaking was a seemingly straightforward matter of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. What was at stake as a point of Constitutional law was the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, generally referred to as the "takings clause." The actual
" The public outcry against the Kelo decision confirms that citizens simply do not trust the government when it comes to their personal property. Definitions and Meanings Justice Sandra Day O'Connor strongly opposed the majority decision (Urbigkit, 2006). She wrote, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with
land use and economic development. There is a hypothetical land parcel near freeway on- and off-ramps, several acres in size, owned by the Smith family, on which developers plan to build a casino. Citizen Opposition There will be significant opposition to building a casino by a small group of vocal and highly visible opponents. Many of the opponents will be affiliated with churches, and possibly environmentalist and social activist organizations as