Project #9884 - POL303

Eminent Domain


In 2005 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a city taking private property, while paying the owner just compensation, and selling it to a private developer as part of a plan to stimulate the city's weak economy (Kelo v. City of New London). Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post:

  1. Explain the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo (the majority opinion by Justice Stevens).
  2. Explain the rationale of Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion.
  3. Evaluate both the majority and minority rationales. Explain and justify your evaluation. Include consideration of these factors:
    • The Supreme Court’s traditional approach to the “public use” requirement for takings
    • The relative competence of the Supreme Court vs. local governments to determine what is a “public use” to justify the taking of private property.


Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts by Day 7 in at least 100 words. Respond to someone whose perspective on the “public use” requirement differs from yours.    

Subject Philosophy
Due By (Pacific Time) 07/27/2013 11:00 pm
Report DMCA
TutorRating
pallavi

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews
More..
amosmm

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
PhyzKyd

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews
More..
rajdeep77

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews
More..
sctys

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews
More..
sharadgreen

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews
More..
topnotcher

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
XXXIAO

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
More..
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by AceMyHW.com - Copyright Policy