In this paper I will address the case of Kelo v. New London and how the authors Robert Posner and Ronald Dworkin would have ruled it if they had been the judges presiding over the case. I plan to show that though the approaches taken would differ that they would still arrive at the same majority decision, Posner through “wealth maximization” and Dworkin through utilizing his principles and policies applications.
Kelo v. New London Development Corporation has a number of key features that need to be addressed. The issues that this case addressed were the development plan, acquisition of the land, and the court challenge brought by the owners of the 15 condemned parcels. Each of these points play an important role in why the Supreme Court came to the verdict it did, and why the owners of the parcels were upset.
The development plan of the city of New London was to implement a plan that would revitalize its economy. The plan was to develop a 90-acre area located on the Thames River and would be near Pfizer’s global research facility, which was scheduled to open soon. The area consisted of residential and commercail properties resting on 115 privately owned parcels of land. The court noted that, “Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a “distressed municipality (Kilo v. New London, 2).” The redevelopment plan was, “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas (1).” It would accomodate new business associated with the Pfizer facility, create leisure and recreational opportunities, and make the city more attractive in general. The city, seeing these benefits adopted a ...
... middle of paper ...
...alize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas, which would indeed result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The happiness would result from the revival of a city said to be “distressed municipality” leading to increased income and well-being for visitors, residents, and businesses. While seeking a conclusion, Dworkin would seek weight for the principle at hand. Looking at cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff and Berman v. Parker he would see other judges ruling in favor of the larger “plans” at hand. This would increase the weight of the principle and he would end up ruling in favor of the private developers, agreeing that “public purpose” became synonymous with “public use” as time progressed. Holding that the development plan remains within the boundaries of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
According to William E. Leuchtenburg, along with other successors, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was the case that constituted a constitutional revolution. Leuchtenburg gives evidence of the main arguments of his opinion concerning the shift in the Court during this particular case as well as others that came after it. The significance of this case was that it upheld the “minimum wage” legislation passed by Washington State even though there was the uprising issue of “liberty of contract.” The presented case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish provoked a constitutional revolution in the United States (Leuchtenburg, pg. 163). This case was not an open-and-shut case and encountered much opposition especially from the review of Tipaldo. As a result, it overturned the decision made by the trial court, which was based on the case, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (Leuchtenburg, pg. 164).
Since the Council meeting on March 31, the issue has become both more contentious and complicated. The Council voted on September 1 to rescind their approval of the new zoning. However, the developer submitted their proposed plans for the site a day prior, which under a new state law, allows for the retail zoning to stand. The “time of application” l...
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Beard, Charles Austin. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed February 23, 2014
Simones, A. (1995). Lecture on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. October 27, 1995. Constitutional Law, Southwest Missouri State University.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
It was interesting to find that 39 percent of all earnings in New Orleans come from residents who worked in the central city. I did not think that the central city of New Orleans had such a dense market for higher paying jobs! This fact is very positive for the city, and hopefully the corporate services industry continues to grow here in New Orleans because the density allows for overall productivity. And the suburban property values outside New Orleans depend on the availability of jobs and an active economy in the Central Business District. So places like Metairie and River Ridge or “edge cities” really rely on the strength of the central city of New Orleans. Therefore it should be the vested interest of both city and suburban residents to scrutinize federal policy that affects the economic health of all cities.
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Our client Ms. Melody Larson (“Ms. Larson”) has contacted our office to seek advice on whether she has any legal recourse. She wants to have Ferdinand Sahayko (“Mr. Sahayko”) to stop his operation of the industrial plant he owns or making him handle the operation in a way that will allow her to be able to return to do business as before. This determination will be based on whether the operation Mr. Sahayko’s plant constitute a nuisance under the laws of Florida.
Gentrification is described as the renovation of certain neighborhoods in order to accommodate to young workers and the middle-class. For an area to be considered gentrified, a neighborhood must meet a certain median home value and hold a percentage of adults earning Bachelor’s degree. Philadelphia’s gentrification rate is among the top in the nation; different neighborhoods have pushed for gentrification and have seen immense changes as a result. However, deciding on whether or not gentrification is a beneficial process can become complicated. Various groups of people believe that cities should implementing policy on advancing gentrification, and others believe that this process shouldn’t executed. Both sides are impacted by the decision to progress gentrification; it is unclear of the true implications of completely renovating impoverished urban areas; gentrification surely doesn’t solve all of a community’s issues. I personally believe that gentrification is not necessarily a good or bad process; gentrification should occur as a natural progression of innovative economies and novel lifestyles collide within certain areas. Policy involving gentrification should not support the removal of people out of their neighborhood for the sake of advancement.
3. Beard, Charles A. "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 27 -- 33).
Including banking, the stock exchanges, and the workplace. In the last half of the twentieth century federalism was the central issue in both black and women’s civil rights. It was at the heart of a redefinition of criminal justice by the Warren Court .The liberal interpretation of it by this court in turn became the target of a conservative attempt to diminish congressional power under the doctrine of “original intent” and to use the federal judiciary to return more authority to state and local government. At the beginni...
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
The Sisters decided to appeal the assessment to the Greater Anchorage Borough. With hearing the evidence and facts from both sides, the board denied the appeal. Then the sisters appealed to the Supreme Court for a different resolution. The purpose for the appeal again was for the property being assessed allowed for exemption. The Supreme Court initially remanded the matter and with frugally going back and forth with evidence and hearing both sides. The Supreme Court decided the burden is on the Sisters to show the office space was entitled for exemption. The courts also mentioned of statutes construing the exemptions in addition to the policy of the rules for tax