Eminent domain has long been a controversial power that both the federal and state governments possess. This power gives the right to the government bodies to expropriate private property or land, that it sees as being blighted, and put it to better use for the greater good of the public. For eminent domain to be exercised the seizing of the properties must meet the requirement that they will be for public purpose or public necessity. As long as this requirement is met the federal government cannot be stopped from acquiring private property. Because of this, the eminent domain power has come under tremendous scrutiny for being unfair and unconstitutional. Moreover, people that have fell victim to this law are protesting that they were not adequately compensated for the property that was taken. The law of eminent domain continues to be a point of debate as it has been continuously proven that this law has negative consequences on not only the residents directly affected by the ramifications of the law, but also the communities that are made up of these residences. For the federal government to condemn property as blighted and then transfer it to private developers or corporations for the obvious purpose of increasing tax revenue is seen as being unfair and unconstitutional. The Constitution designates to Congress a list of specific enumerated powers. These powers can be found in Article I of the Constitution, which contains some important items. These powers range from things like declaring war, raising armies and collecting taxes. It also includes powers that are of secondary importance such as regulating the value of foreign coin and establishing post roads.(Baude, p1746) However, the power of taking private property is not c... ... middle of paper ... ...ations of this are predominantly felt across lower income families that find themselves powerless because they are in the crosshairs of large corporations that seek to take their property through the use of eminent domain. Moreover, the unconstitutional aspect of this takings method has also created friction among the effected citizens and the federal government. Besides the social effects that eminent domain has had it is all too clear the negative outcomes that it’s caused on the fragile economies. By forcing people into poorer neighborhoods the government is condemning the lower class to a life of poverty. It is unmistakable that the power of eminent domain has caused the public to despise the government while increasing the gap between the lower and upper class and also further increasing the possibility of corruption between corporations and the government.
Iceland recognizes the issue of eminent domain, as they have had trouble with this in regards to geothermal deposits. However, they agree with the ECHR regarding rights to fair compensation. Governments should only take property if it will benefit the public as a whole.
Such power could allow cities to favor special interest groups or large corporations. It could be said, the Supreme Court’s decision concludes that there are no restraints a city must consider when taking for economic development and this creates a reasonable potential for abuse. Cities can claim that without eminent domain they cannot accomplish improvements or worthwhile projects within their communities. Many areas in which eminent domain is used are in low income neighborhoods. It is tremendously difficult for individuals in these areas to pay legal fees to fight cities from condemning their properties. Uprooting families, elderly and destroying small businesses is not a means for economic
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within
...elp the working middle class from falling into poverty or to help the working poor rise out of poverty. Furthermore the working poor themselves lack the knowledge and power to demand reform. David Shipler says it best when he writes, “Relief will come, if at all, in an amalgam that recognizes both the society’s obligation through government and business, and the individual’s obligation through labor and family —and the commitment of both society and individual.” (Shipler 5786-5788) It is time for America to open its eyes and see the invisible working poor.
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
In addition, the poor are overburdened they always have been, especially in 2014. This is owing to the fact that the middle class is close to disappearing, which is forming a large gap between the poor and the rich. Furthermore, banking can be more expensive for nearly all poor people, whom are usually put in extreme circumstances where they are required to pay more taxes. And the poor are usually shut out from society and are left on the street as if they were a piece of garbage, which is why it is particularly difficult to attain a job as a poor person. Not many people in the world care for the poor. It is surprising to think that the poor had not been oppressed in 1791. Someone would think the poor have always had a heavy burden. The majority of America’s population is poor and they are ignored and portrayed as aliens whom we should have no contact with.
In the early 1900s, “restrictive covenants” more specifically racially restrictive covenants were legally enforceable agreements that prohibited landowners from leasing or selling property to minority groups, at that time namely African Americans. The practice of the covenants, private, racially restrictive covenants, originated as a reaction to a court ruling in 1917 “which declared municipally mandated racial zoning unconstitutional . . . leaving the door open for private agreements, such as restrictive covenants, to continue to perpetuate residential segregation” (Boston, n.d.). It was more of a symbolic act than attacking the “discriminatory nature” (Schaefer, 2012, p. 184) of the restrictive covenants, when the Supreme Court found in the 1948 case of Shelley v Kraemer that racially restrictive covenants were unconstitutional. In this particular case, a white couple, the Kraemers lived in a neighborhood in Missouri that was governed by a restrictive covenant. When a black couple moved into their neighborhood, the Kraemers went to the court asking that the covenant be enforced. In a unanimous decision, it was decided, “state courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitutes state action in violation of the 14th Amendment” (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948). Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the covenants were unenforceable, it was not until 1968 when the Fair Housing Act was passed that it become illegal (Latshaw, 2010). Even though today it is illegal, it might appear that we still have an unspoken...
As Andrew Jackson once said, “many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by acts of Congress”. This fits the classism model, or the systematic oppression of subordinated class groups to advantage and strengthen the dominant class groups, the lower class’ injustices allowing the upper class to thrive and be bettered. The elite’s mindset that they are more important than the average citizen allows them to hold the idea that they deserve more rights or protection than the average citizen as well. Huston expands on this application while expounding on the political economy of aristocracy, advancing that “in lands characterized by political monopoly, rulers, monarchs, or aristocrats used governmental policies to enrich themselves and their retainers, thus producing a maldistribution of wealth” (Huston 1089). This political monopoly model holds true in America today with the upper class taking advantage of governmental processes to better themselves above regular tax-paying citizens with the idea that they are deserving of it. James Huston again validates this reasoning by stating “the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes” (Huston 1098).
Although I don’t think that it will be effortless and uncomplicated, I do think that the land owned by the federal government should be devolved back to the individual states so they can customize their care for the environment that is specifically catered to their specific terrain’s needs. I believe the best alternative is for the United States to give back the federal land to the individual states, and then the individual states consol...
This was practiced when private land was taken to construct roads or other needs for the colonies. Although the development of roads benefited the public, the matter of payment for the seized land wasn’t a regulation. The payment to the private land owners was seen more as a courtesy then requirement. The power to exercise eminent domain by the federal government laid inactive until the case of Kohl v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government in 1875. Justice William Strong came to the conclusion that “the very nature of sovereignty allowed the taking of land for public use, and also invoked the Takings Clause as supporting the government's right to exercise eminent domain powers” (Newton 1). As the years pass, the powers of eminent domain seem to get interpreted more
...ment and the people, more Americans can see the equality promised them: equality of opportunity. Only through community, meaning effort from both citizens and government, can inequality be resolved. No one-sided approach can rectify a situation that envelops all of society. Government must set aside partisanship in order to produce targeted legislation that addresses the declining transportation, education, and economic infrastructure. Meanwhile, the community must realign their ideals and realize that together these problems can be solved. However, as long as materialism and overt individualism dominate the community and dysfunction and gridlock have a foothold in government, the schism between rich and poor will continue to grow. The two sides will “live increasingly separate lives” (Sandel), and the goal of economic equality slips father and farther from repair.
The expansion of the United States is such a vital part of American history, yet some often forget how it all happened. Many thriving settlers were given an extraordinary opportunity starting on January 1, 1863 that would end up laying the floor work for many Midwestern and Western citizens today. The rights and responsibilities to live on and maintain 160 acres of land may seem like a lot to take in for a student learning about an Act about land from the 1860s. However, think about all the people the Homestead Act of 1862 affected. There was a lot of pressure on the original homesteaders to make good use of their newfound land, the government was giving out land that wasn’t exactly theirs, and the Native American would have some their rights stolen.
Eminent domain is the legal right to take away private property for public use by either state, or a private person or corporation. It is legally taken away for the purpose to exercise the functions of public characters. Eminent domain gives power to the federal, state and local governments, school district, hospital district, or any other agency to take away private property for the use of the public needs. Eminent domain also gives the power to the government to take away private property if needed to public needs, even without the owner’s full consent. In case of eminent domain, the owner of the property gets payments from the government through compensation. Most of the times, when the government takes away private property, it is for the needs of roads, public schools, or other useful utilities. Eminent domain in the Unites States is also mentioned in the Fifth Amendment of the constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, “ nor shall private property be taken for public use without just the compensation”. The proceeding to take the private property under the eminent domain policy is called condemnation proceeding. Eminent domain is not limited to freeway widening projects, however, it may include projects like working on a new city hall, shopping center, an office building, a bicycle path or a golf course. Nevertheless, Eminent domain not only applies to private property but also personal property. The government has the right to legally take away even a person’s personal property for the use of public needs. There are also two types of using the eminent domain. One way of using the eminent domain is taking just one part of the property from the owner and paying the owner. Second way of using emine...
Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it.
Rapid industrialization and nation-wide corporations led to wealthier families and a new middle class. Although there were many who did enjoy the new luxuries paid for by new salaried jobs like managers, technicians, and engineers, many more people were below the poverty line and resided in the slums, living with other families with no privacy and unsanitary conditions. These families were unfortunate because of the wage cuts and the replacement of labor by immigrants and African Americans. A change was in order and the labor unions took the plate by voicing their complaints, and, when that didn’t work, resorting to physical means to get what they wanted.