Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction for eminent domain essay
A thesis statement for eminent domain
Eminent domain example
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction for eminent domain essay
1. Explain how the US Constitution both protects and restricts property rights.
The US Constitution discusses property rights mainly in the Fifth Amendment. It does this through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings and Just Compensation Clause. Two important issues are policy power which is the power of government to secure rights, and eminent domain which is the power to take property for public use in exchange for payment of just compensation.
There are two ways that government takes property. The first is by condemning the property and taking the title. However, more often than not the property is really being taken for a private use rather than public. The second is in regulatory takings, the owner is almost always inadequately to never compensated for his/her losses but the Supreme Court is working on requiring just compensation for certain cases.
Property is a right that we have as Americans. It is of the same importance level as freedom because government should not be able to take your freedom away just like they should not be allowed to take your property for no reason. The US constitution protects property rights by using eminent domain. The use of eminent domain means that the government cannot take away your property for public use without just compensation. This protects people’s assets against the government and lets Americans keep their independence and piece of mind.
The US Constitution restricts property rights when
2. What is the justification for governmental involvement in the redistribution of income and what problems does that create?
Most people believe that the responsibility of the government is to redistribute income from the wealthy to the impoverished and to those who are at a disadvantage in th...
... middle of paper ...
...ticipating in rent seeking.
The activity taken in the market can be ethical or unethical. Individuals in the stock market that deal in rent seeking are practicing unethical behavior because they are making money off of companies while they are hurting the society as a whole. Our government is screwed up and if the political-economic structure was rebuilt according to Finbarrian guidelines, the financial sector would be under 5% of GDP, rather than approaching 20% of GDP.
Some believe that rent seeking can actually be a part of the solution instead of the main problem. Rent seeking can actually help in some circumstances.
Works Cited
Marotta, David John. "What Is Rent-Seeking Behavior?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 24 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Mar. 2014
Dwight R. Lee. "Redistribution of Income." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
In any case of mandatory purchase, the purchased property should be used for the public good. The government must have proof of a plan to use the property to improve the lives of the public before the property can be purchased. Property must also be purchased in accordance with law, which will vary from country to country.
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 ...
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.
Eminent Domain is defined as “the power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property” (Farlex, par. 1). Eminent domain has a long and distinguished legal history, dating back to the Magna Carta. The term “eminent domain” was coined by Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutch jurist and philosophe, to describe the power of the state over natural property (Dalton, par. 3). This legal process has been used in many nations ostensibly for the “greater good.” Recently, Russia has come onto the world stage as abusing the power of eminent domain in preparation for the 2014 Olympic Games, as has Brazil in regards to the World Cup and upcoming 2016 Olympic Games. They, like many nations, have been accused of not giving just compensation for property taken. World-wide, eminent domain and it abuse of have been increasing as the world’s population and economy change. Author Tit Elingtin writes “The governments have taken advantage of that eminent domain ruling, and you, the media, have failed at protecting citizens” (Elingtin par. 13). This quotation reflects many people’s opinions today. Many believe that governments abuse the power they are given with eminent domain and call on the United Nations to remove the problem.
Under Kentucky law, KRS 416.540 (6), the common wealth has the right to take land for public use but for just compensation. Court cases have interpreted public use as a taking for any rationally related service for public purpose; which means that the government can take land for a non-governmental entity and that purpose doesn’t even have to directly serve the public.
There are a number of reasons why this freedom needs to be protected. The number one and most important is to keep the individuality of the American people from becoming controlled by the Government.
The issue of global wealth redistribution has become an increasingly fundamental topic in our globalized world. The vast amount of literature on this topic has left philosophers and economists to seek questions on whether there is a duty to redistribute wealth and in what way it should be distributed globally. The uncertainty over this remains a key impediment to real life progress. Nevertheless, the crucial aspect of this debate is to understand whether individuals have an obligation to redistribute wealth internationally. There are many deep controversial issues that conflict with the justness of responsibility. However in this paper, I will be using a cosmopolitan outlook by opening up the discussion of the current global situation and what duty an individual in the developed states has to redistribute globally. I will also analyze the poverty in the third world, and assess whether distributing wealth is the most effective mechanism compared to other alternatives.
America in today's society is burdened with many economic and political problems that have begun to plague the nation. Controversial topics are constantly being debated from sunrise to sunset across the country with supporters and those who oppose each bearing various levels of financial and political misfortune. With the numerous economic and political problems that affect the nation, the argument over the issue of income inequality is one of the most notable. Creating a political civil war, proponents from both sides have brought the issue into national view and debate has grown substantially within recent years.
When the government needs someone’s land they do ask to buy first, however if the owner does not want to sell, that is when eminent domain is put into place. If the government wants the land and the owner refuses to sell they are still compensated for the cost of land, which is stated in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Eminent was put in place so that private land could be used to public use to better the state or country depending on the situation. Some feel that this is not right, that eminent domain takes away from a person’s personal rights to own land.
Income inequality not only harms us fiscally, but also affects our mental and physical wellbeing; therefore, it is important to identify the right ways to control wealth distribution among people.
... 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.
Reich, Robert B. “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer.” A World of Ideas:
Sutter, John. “What is income inequality, anyway?” CNN. 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.
Hart Research Associates, 2010. Reich, Robert. “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor Poorer.” The Work of Nations.
Block, Walter. "A Critique of the Legal and Philosophical Case for Rent Control." Journal of Business Ethics 40.1 (2002): 75-90. ProQuest. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.