The government undertakes a responsibility to act under the law when making decisions to protect the people; they should make decisions that will benefit the citizens of its nation. Keeping in mind the government’s duty to its people, there must also be a balance between the power that the government wields and the accountability of their actions. Under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, there is a section explaining a process by the name of eminent domain. Eminent domain is the government’s power to take private property and change it to public use for the state. Eminent domain power applies differently in each state; as the court cases on eminent domain evolve, more of its limits are being revealed to the public. Ideally, …show more content…
Eminent domain was originally coined by a Dutch jurist and philosopher, Hugo Grotius. His philosophy revolved around the power of the state over the natural property. Furthermore, Article 39 of Magna Carta provides, "No freeman shall be ... dispossessed ... except by the legal judgement of his peers or by the law of the land." This document reiterates how private property owners are freemen who deserve fair judgement and need proper compensation. Eminent domain or condemnation is the power of the sovereign to take private property for public use without the owner’s consent. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right to due process. In response to an unfair court ruling, private property owners have begun to initiate actions against the government in a kind of proceeding called inverse …show more content…
In 2003, a couple living 235 feet away from the beach, Fred and Dorothy Strahlendorf, were forced to evacuate their house. Following the procedure of eminent domain, the couple was offered $185,000 for their home. At first glance, the price seemed reasonable especially since the government ruled the home to be damaged goods. In the City of Long Branch v. Dorothy and Fred Strahlendorf case, the court concludes: All its [the city of Long Branches] oceanfront properties [were] blighted… the .15-acre tract, which includes a two-story, 1,400-foot, single-family residence, was worth $185,000. Fred and Dorothy Strahlendorf, the owners, valued it at $500,000, based on prices for oceanfront homes in Sea Bright and Belmar and on improvements to the Long Branch beach by the Army Corp of Engineers in
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.
The initial rule pertaining to this case, as seen in New York v. Belton, was that
...udicial branch of the American government must be checked by the legislatures of states. To prevent instances like this from reoccurring, it is essential for state legislatures to take preventative steps and draft bills that would further limit the ability of the government to appropriate private property while still protecting private property owners. At the federal level, since it is abundantly clear from the case of Midkiff that the Supreme Court will defer to the Congress to define “public use,” a constitutional remedy needs to take place in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. It would be essential that an amendment to the Public Use Clause would specify the guidelines and standards of a “public use” to preserve the original intent of the legislative authors and provide the necessary private property protection to which all all Americans have a right.
Consequently, Richard and Mildred’s case was heard in a City Court of Virginia, where they both plead guilty because a city lawyer representing their case
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
The logical consequence of the application of the Stromberg case ruling to the Terminiello case was the reversal of the conviction. The Supreme Court did not challenge the constitutionality of the Chicago ordinance, but stated that in this case, free speech can not be denied to anyone even if such speech is considered to be provocative and unpopular in nature. The specifics of the Terminiello conviction were not explicit and, therefore, impenetrable by the inquiries of the Supreme Court. Without exact articulation of the conviction the Court could not dissect the verdict into parts that were applicable to Terminiello's charge and conviction.
Property is an owned object, whether that is land or a house or a computer. We own property, it’s our right to protect and decide what we do with that property. We worked hard to own property and we will fight to protect it from both foreign and domestic threats. When someone takes our property, we call it theft, but when the government does it, it’s called Eminent Domain.
are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in
What does freedom really mean? Many people today are aware that they have a right to freedom, but do not know what that really means. Religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are the five freedoms that the First Amendment specifically speaks about. Let’s take a look at the definition of each of the five freedoms, what the government says about our freedom, how it is acted out and portrayed in America, and a few case studies involving the different aspects of the First Amendment.
Bounds v. Smith was argued November 1, 1976 and the case was decided April 27, 1977 by THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth circuit. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. STEWART, J., post, and REHNQUIST, J filed dissenting opinions, in which BURGER, C.J., joined.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 76 Md. App. 23 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland July 8, 1988).
Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung. 2003. The Supreme Court Historical Society. 22 April 2003.