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 vs. New London
There are two dissenting opinions written concerning the Kelo vs. New London case; one written by Justice O'Connor and the second one written by Justice Thomas. Each of these dissenting opinions offers a unique look at why the court should have found for Kelo instead of against Kelo. This case, like many cases, hinges on the interpretation of the Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution, for the most part, involves a comprehension and understanding of what exactly the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Document. In this case the comprehension and understanding concerns the use of the phrase "public use."
A 2005 law review article states "the confusion in the lower courts arises from takings that do not directly achieve the government's purpose -- takings that involve a separate, unregulated private party to whom the property flows" (Christensen, 2005, p. 1669). The real issue, according to Trent Christensen (author of the article), is that the courts interpreted...
This is a huge change to previous courts and rulings. What the Supreme Court did in this case was opened the door to allow the government of any municipality, city, state or the nation to legally 'take' a private individual's property with no recourse if it can be justified by public benefit. This is wrong, and should be revisited. This paper agrees with Christensen when he states "the Supreme Court should revisit this precedent and apply a heightened scrutiny in order to ensure the protection and the security of property" (Christensen, p. 1712).
This paper is not the only entity that believes the Supreme Court decided incorrectly in the Kelo case.
Some state governments believe the exact same thing and have responded to Justice John Paul Stevens remarks that there is nothing keeping state legislatures from enacting their own interpretation of the eminent domain clause. One such state…
Works Cited
Christensen, T.; (2005) From direct "public use" to indirect "public benefit": Kelo vs. New London's bridge from rational basis to heightened scrutiny for eminent domain takings, Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 2005, Issue 6, pp. 1669 -- 1712
Griswold, S.; (2007) Property rights vs. public use, Tennessee Bar Journal, Vol. 43, Issue 2, pp. 14 -- 27
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
U.S. Supreme Court: Kelo v. New London (2005) Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London involved the issue of eminent domain which is granted to governmental bodies including federal, state and local governmental bodies by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which means that the government is authorized to take land that is privately owned if the land is to be used by the public and the owner
" 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
Lbs Homework 2 (9/22) Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. 43 (1815) Who is/are the plaintiff(s) (i.e. consumer, company, employee, government) and what type of legal relief is/are the plaintiff(s) seeking? Taylor and other members of the Episcopal church of Alexandria in the parish of Fairfax are seeking the right to sell the lands and apply the proceeds to use by the church. What legal question must the court decide, and what is the common
Slaughterhouse Cases, Takings Clause PART I Slaughterhouse Cases 198 U.S. 45 Lochner v New York 1904 (Oyez, 2013) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Joseph Lochner The People of the State of New York TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FACTS -- Lochner was convicted but he appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the bakery labor law interfered with an employee's liberty to contract as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.. The employee has the right to substantive due process of
This dilemma brings the Kelo case to the forefront of public policy debate. The Kelo case involved "New London, a city in Connecticut, using its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues" Oyez.org. 2005). The plaintiffs contended that the takings by the city were not designed for public use but rather private