Hawaii Housing Authority versus Midkiff (1984) Majority Opinion was argued 26 Mar. 1984, decided 30 May 1984 with Justice J. O'Connor delivering the opinion of the Court. Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff (1984) stands as one of the Supreme Court's most referenced explanations of the requirement that any governmental taking of private property must be for a “public use,” as set forth in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This case was a direct a challenge to a Hawaii statute, the Land Reform Act of 1967, that attempted to undercut a landowning oligopoly that had long tied up land titles in the state. Midkiff was part of that that landowning oligopoly. The Land Reform Act of 1967 permitted the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landlords (the lessors) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (the lessees). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private land owners. That meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the State and Federal Govermnet.The contested statute gave lessees of single family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property that they leased, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the land owners) claimed that such a condemnation was not a taking for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was promptly turned over to the lessee (a private ... ... middle of paper ... ...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.
To stimulate growth inland, the Homestead Act was initiated. Many traveled overland by horse and wagon on rutted trails and grassland to find a plot of 160 acres of undeveloped land. They were granted title to the land if they “improved” the plot by building a dwelling and cultivating the land. After five years on the land, farmers were entitled to the property, free and clear.
Foreign exploitation began, when Cook replaced the traditional island subsistence-sharing economy by the for-profit barter and afterward the money economy. Firearms, and sandalwood lumbering where just a few items that brought foreign economic and political control of the ruling ali’i, who were tricked by many greedy Western merchants. The Great Mahele of 1848 and the Kuleana Act of 1850 contained a major land redistribution act, which was forced onto the monarchy by Westerners(Blaisdell, p.44). Bringing fee simple ownership to Hawaiians, these land divisions actually alienated the land from them. The Mahele divided the lands between the chiefs, king and government. The Kuleana act supposedly guaranteed to the makaainana fee simple title to small plots of land, which would eventually separate the individual from the group. (Trask, p.10) Hawaiians depended on the land, they were not use to “private property”, which led to many problems, and the chiefs and the government were heavily indebt to the Western merchants.
Years ago, there was once a small town called Chaves Ravine within Los Angeles, California and this town was a poor rural community that was always full of life. Two hundred families, mostly Chicano families, were living here quite peacefully until the Housing Act of 1949 was passed. The Federal Housing Act of 1949 granted money to cities from the federal government to build public housing projects for the low income. Los Angeles was one of the first cities to receive the funds for project. Unfortunately, Chavez Ravine was one of the sites chosen for the housing project, so, to prepare for the construction work of the low-income apartments, the Housing Authority of Los Angeles had to convince the people of the ravine to leave, or forcibly oust them from their property. Since Chavez Ravine was to be used for public use, the Housing Authority of Los Angeles was able seize and buy Chavez Ravine from the property owners and evict whoever stayed behind with the help of Eminent Domain. The LA Housing Authority had told the inhabitants that low-income housing was to be built on the land, but, because of a sequence of events, the public housing project was never built there and instead Dodgers Stadium was built on Chavez Ravine. Although Chavez Ravine public housing project was the result of the goodwill and intent of the government, rather than helping the people Chavez Ravine with their promise of low-income housing, the project ended up destroying many of their lives because of those in opposition of the public housing project and government mismanagement.
The concept of eminent domain is the condemnation of property for the public’s well being or good for private use is not the original intention and should not be used in this way. Private corporations and individuals are using the initial purpose was for the acquisition of land for the building of railroads and highways. The use of eminent domain has changed over the years by law, government and legal interpretations. These changes have allowed private interest groups to petition the state and local governments for eminent domain to be declared on property where the owners refuse to sell. Each states position on eminent domain is decided by the legislature and the voters of the state for use by private corporations and individuals. The claim by the corporations and individuals is that there projects is for the good of the public which plays of the condemnation of property and roads of being for the public’s well being. The use of eminent domain for the acquisition of land to build the Keystone Pipeline does not fall within the confines of for the public’s well being.
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
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...
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
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.
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
... private property can only be taking for public use. What is in the constitution cannot be change or interpreted differently because you than get the government changing the constitution to fit its benefits. Here Originalist, textualist should have been use to interpret the constituion . The Supreme Court decided on a case that should have been in favor of Kelo because the constitution specifically states what to do in situations like that.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that individuals have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts, against absurd searches and seizures, yet the issue close by here is whether this additionally applies to the ventures of open fields and of articles in plain view and whether the fourth correction gives insurance over these also. With a specific end goal to reaffirm the courts' choice on this matter I will be relating their choices in the instances of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which bargain straightforwardly with the inquiry of whether an individual can have sensible desires of protection as accommodated in the fourth correction concerning questions in an open field or in plain view.
Harada possessed property before acquiring property from Gunnerson, “suggesting this method of purchasing property processed easily.” His neighbors noticed the purchase and attempted to dispose of his Japanese family by offering an exceptional amount of profit. The People of the State of California versus Jukichi Harada favored Harada, indicating his right to own and purchase property “in good faith, with the funds of the children, and not as a circumvention of the Alien Land Law.” Americans in California responded negatively insisting Harada violated the Alien Land Law, which eventually reached the press throughout the state and the eastern regions of the United States. Additionally, Oyama versus California guaranteed “equal access to property regardless of race” in 1948. This case supported the impact and the defeat of the California Alien Land Laws several years after the decision. Americans sensed their racial superiority over the Asian community and attempted to subdue their chances of employment.
This thriving constitutional controversy has been in the discussions by a majority of the Supreme Court decisions. Although the United State...
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.