Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Eminent domain as a necessary evil
Eminent domain as a necessary evil
Eminent domain as a necessary evil
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Eminent domain as a necessary evil
The law of eminent domain has been discussed over many years. The law of eminent domain is allowing the government to seize private property for public use. Many feel as if it should not be allowed. Some reasons, the property belongs to the people they have rights, many people abuse the system, and also many states use it in different ways. All these reasons give us, we the people more reasons why it should not be allowed. First, we as citizens have rights, so if a person uses their money they earn and buys a piece of property, how would it be fair if the government without asking can just take part of your land you worked hard to get and turn it into a parking lot or national park etc. Now you have worked many hours to buy that land and the government just decides oh well we need more land and they take yours. How is that fair if you're supposed to have equal rights. It not you should be able to tell them no when it comes down to your property. Next, many governments abuse the system by cheating citizens out. Like at this moment the government has put a Dakota pipeline right through the Indian tribes lands. The government are treating the Indians like they don't matter. They are abusing the eminent domain and using force so they can get what the government wants. How is that fair …show more content…
to any of the poor Indian Tribes especially after the government knew it was their land. They are showing how easily it is to abuse the system. Another reason, many states use the eminent domain in different ways.This is a con for many citizens because some states might give you more advantages than others on purpose.
Like maybe one state that has a lot of farming might not have as many advantages because the government is more likely to need something from them. Like maybe taking part of a farmer's land because they need another gas well and the farmer has a barn where they are taking his land the farmer just lost money and his barn, how does that benefit them. Other states will more likely have more advantages if the government most likely won't need anything from them. So they are using their advantages for our
disadvantages. Finally, some people do believe eminent domain is an advantage, a reason the government might use the new land they get to build something for the whole town or city but maybe the town doesn't truly need or want it. To conclude the cons of having the law of eminent domains are the government could take away something you took time to buy, many governments abuse the system and lastly many states use the domain in different ways. This topic will be argued for many years to come, some could change their minds some might not, this topic of the law of eminent domain will conclude to go on.
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 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 ...
Powers are not directly given to the people, but instead of those they elect to run the government. Therefore, a proposition should be made to where the people have a voice. There shall be a fusion between direct and representative democracy in both federal government and the states. Having more of a direct democracy will make it to where the people bring up any current issues that they want solved. Often, those who represent the states are bought out by elites so they can benefit for themselves through the legislation that they make. By having a direct democracy the people will have the power to be able to bring issues that they want and will therefore, be solved by those who represent them. This also solves the issue
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 its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
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
Federalism is the powers a country has, divided between the state and federal government. Federalism was not included in the articles of confederation which left the states with all of the power. Federalism was chosen in the United States because the U.S. wanted there to be more control in the National Government. The U.S State government wanted to keep some of the power, so federalism was a good system of government to choose because they got to split the powers between them. Federalism has many benefits in California. Federalism helps California by giving the state power. Each state is going to have a different diversity in which each state can govern. If California wanted to, they could establish a policy of their own. They could see how well the policy went, according to other states that have established them.
First, 2014 is completely different than the year of 1791. America has a truly strong government compared to 1791 when the government was extremely weak. But since America is stronger today does not mean it is fair. If any government were fair, it would be a perfect world; and a perfect world is what America’s government does not have. There is an excessive amount of corruption in America’s government today. People elected into office are bribed to take a certain position to favor those who have more money. Also, police officers, firefighters, and people who have helped society have recently become excessively involved in the drug cartel secretly making the issue extremely difficult to stop. Can one group of people in fact please a country of 313.9 million people and still be fair? It is highly unlikely.
Some of the advantages of having a federal government are that the national level of government can work on the bigger picture tasks while the state government solve the local and specific issues, so that each departments time can be used wisely and efficiently. Furthermore, if citizens took their everyday problems to the national level, then the national government would be over worked and the citizen might have to travel far to even reach the states capital. Each side of the
Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
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.
Talk about some of the advantages and disadvantages of federalism. Does this system serve the United States well? Why or why not? From my notion federalism has a more moral outlook on our country as a hold. They try to prevent a stronger power by distributing some essential power to the states which also gives the United States citizens more option. Different states have different policies which will attract citizen that concur with their laws. For instance gay marriage, some states in the United States support gay marriage and believe that people should marry who they want to marry no matter the gender. California is one of those states. According to an article written by Tamara Thompson, “States are strongly divided on same-sex marriage; thirty-three states prohibit same-sex marriage, including 29 states that have prohibitions in their state constitutions. With New Mexico, 17 states along with the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage; most states that have recently allowed same-sex marriage have done so through legislation.” With that said individuals who live in Georgia, where gay marriage is banned, are free to move to any other states where gay marriage is permitted. Legalization of marijuana in certain states but not in another can be a second example of why giving states power to make their own law can benefit us as citizens. If we don’t concur with one state law, we can move to a state with the laws we do agree with; therefore, giving states control is definitely a pro rather than a con. On the other hand, we have the cons and disadvantages of federalism. One disadvantage of federalism is the fact that states that have contradicting laws that is in the vicinity of each other can be affected by each other. For example states who legalize marijuana, which includes but not
In the United States, we often times take many things for granted. One out of many the examples are our resources. We have so many things available to us that we occasionally do not even think about how, or where we got them. Like food, The United States has some of the richest soil in the world, so as a result, we are able to grow a lot of our food. Right along with water, we have fairly easy accesses to water, which allows us to grow high yield crops.
Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
... 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.
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Homestead Act." The Reader's Companion to American History. Dec. 1 1991: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.