Eminent domain states how the government a private property for public use in exchange for compensation. It is authorized via the captivating section of the fifth amendment of the United States components. Highlighting individual property acquisition will not be allowed for public utilization with fair compensation. Fair compensation means that the landowners have complete ownership of the land or even the amount of property criticized due to its action. The valuation issue is infrequently a simple one that is highly uncertain in the eminent domain circumstance. However, eminent domain differs according to different constitutions, decisions such as Kelo v New London, eminent domain in Arizona, and the conception of federalism in the American government.
Q 1. How does the language on eminent domain differ between the Fifth Amendment of the U.S constitution and article 2, section 17 of the Arizona constitution? That is, which seems to be more general and which more narrow and defined?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The fifth amendment of the United States Constitution requires the government to give fair compensation when it takes private property for public use or public purpose. It gives the defendant the right to grand dully, forbids double difficulty, and protects the defendant against being forced to testify (Pilon, 2017). It requires due process of the law to be associated with any proceedings which deny a civil right to life, property, and liberty. In contrast, article two, section seventeen of the Arizona Constitution states that set apart possessions should not be allowed for reserved utilization apart from for the secretive means of compulsion. Then, no secluded possessions shall be occupied deprived of any compensation made and paid into the court for the owner. Besides, the Fifth Amendment appears to be narrow since it has not specified the time the compensation should be made, unlike the Arizona constitution, where compensation ought to be made before using the property.
Q 2. Kelo v. New London. How did the US Supreme Court get from “public use” in the Fifth Amendment to the standard of “public purpose?” found in the decision Kelo v. City of New London (2005)?
Public use includes health, safety, interest, or the convenience of general citizens, while the public purpose is the government actions directed to benefit the citizens in general. The United States Supreme Court got from public use to public purpose by taking Kelo's property and offered it to a new owner under the banner of economic growth (Zhen, 2017). The Supreme Court establishes that the progress idea assisted a communal drive by creating new opportunities, increasing revenue, and contributing to urban renewal. The court favored the city of New London by justifying its decision to take Kelo's property and give it to the other party to build pharmaceuticals research centers to benefit the general public. The court of law found that the development proposal helped a community purpose and therefore established community usage.
Why is the court’s slight change in meaning from public use to public purpose so important? To whom is the court “deferring” in the Kelo case when it comes to “takings” for economic revitalization?
As witnessed in Kelo's case, the decision tries to oppress the poor, politically weak, and have little ability to defend themselves against those in power. In Bailey versus Mesa's Arizona case, the three-judge panel ruled out against Bailey's shop's demolishment to give Ken Lenhart the land to relocate his operation (Emerson, 2011). The use of the land by Ken Lenhart was more for personal gain than the public purpose. He wanted to relocate his hand ware store, which had nothing to do with public use. The public use's constitutional requirements are simply content when the planned use's public profits and features dominate secluded nature. Kelo upheld the condemnation of fifteen residential properties in New London to transfer to a new private owner to promote economic development. Additionally, the government does not give fair compensation to the victims as agreed in the constitution. It hires appraisers who give low compensation on the property as compared to the market price. They threaten the property owners by eminent domain, whereby the government entity legally takes the private property as compensation for the public use. The government does not cater to the relocation cost of the affected businesses.
What does Justice O’Connor think of this decision in her dissert of the Kelo case?
The decision about Kelo's case made justice O Connor feel it is unjust for the legislature to take private property and offer it to another private individual because he or she can make better use of it. The justice feels that the secluded possessions are susceptible to be taken and reassigning its ownership to a secluded alternative holder so long as it might be advanced (Donkor-Hyiaman et al., 2019). In developing countries like the United States, there are direct government properties and incremental self-help properties. Despite the government's capability to economic developments, the insufficient credit information, furthermore, is a court procedural to transfer ownership of any property from one person to another. To complete that process, the two parties should have an agreement under the court as the witness.
Q 3. Eminent domain in Arizona. Meanwhile, what is it about the Arizona constitution that would make a decision like Kelo far less likely in the Grand Canyon state? How is this (eminent domain issue) explained in the Arizona case Bailey v. Mesa?
The property does not serve the interest of the people as claimed by the legislature. The benefit of it to the public should outdo the personal gain. In Kelo's case, directors are privately appointed rather than being appointed by the public. It shows that all the property is planned for private benefit. The advantage of the taken property to the public is seen as an afterthought. On the other side, the public's advantages should be seen before the property in question is taken from the original owner to the new owner. The legislature seems to be less considerate as it is supposed to support the property owner in upgrading it for a public purpose.
In general, eminent domain has been discussed as a supervision methodology for owning secluded possessions for communal usage in the conversation of just compensation. Besides, the defendant should not be forced to testify against himself or herself. Thus, they should not be prosecuted for the same crime as the previous one. the process for the united states highest court to get from the communal usage in the fifth adjustment to the better regular of communal determination as an initiate in conclusion "Kelo v city of the new London" has also been substantiated. Later on, the court has indicated that the expansion plans assisted communal purposes and organized communal usage.
Q 4. Explain how the concept of federalism in the American system would allow for the difference between the two constitutions, and the result of both the Kelo and Bailey case.
The concept of federalism regulates the state from oppressing the poor and less advantaged in society. It oversees the plaintiff and the defendant's rights to ensure such rights are respected (King, 2017). The federal law exercises a gravitational strength informal artists, consequential in extensive conventionality to centralized regulation and principle at the public level. "In the wake of Kelo, the state resisted the court's validation of the economic growth justification for public use, instead choosing to impose expansive private property protections beyond the federal minimum." Conventionally, state-taking jurisprudence in the renowned territory and supervisory proceeds has powerfully settled to the highest court-taking policy. Eminent domain is the legal process in which a property is taken. The government entity goes to court to formally take the title to the property and agrees to pay money for it. In some cases, the government restricts property ownership before paying the compensation, a process called inverse eminent domain. The total deprivations of economic value and physical inversion to the property require compensation too.
Finally, Justice O'Connor's opinion about the decision made on Kelo's case shows that it is unjust for the legislature to take private property and offer it to another person because he can make better use of it. The case is favoring on one side, particularly those with the ability to defend themselves and omit the other side. Federalism has also been explained whereby it still regulates the state from oppressing the community's less advantaged. More so, it oversees their right to ensure that they are respected. The government properties pass through the court for the entitlement and ought to agree to pay for it. In other cases, it does restrict the ownership rights of the property before the payment of the compensation.
References
Donkor-Hyiaman, K. A., Pärn, E. A., Owusu-Manu, D., Edwards, D. J., & Aigbavboa, C. (2019). Pension reforms, risk transfer, and housing finance innovations. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment , 34 (4), 1149–1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09698-4
Emerson, J. (2011). Court rules against Mesa eminent domain attempt . East Valley Tribune. Retrieved March 12, 2021, https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/court-rules-against-mesa-eminent-domain-attempt/article_1447007d-686d-5a23-b9a4-c0a0dca75421.html
King, D. (2017). Forceful Federalism against American Racial Inequality. Government and Opposition , 52 (2), 356–382. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2016.52
Pilon, R. (2017, February 16). 16. Property Rights and the Constitution . Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/property-rights-constitution
Zhen, S. K. (2017). Eminent Domain in the United States and China: Comparing the Practice Across Countries. Inquiries Journal , 9 (11). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1703/eminent-domain-in-the-united-states-and-china-comparing-the-practice-across-countries
