a).
The case arose out of a decision by planners
in New London, Connecticut to condemn some 15 properties belonging to nine individuals
(Somin, 2011). Some of these houses were used for residential purposes. All
properties were to be handed over to another private party who indeed to use
the land for business. Petitioners challenged the compulsory taking of their
properties on the basis that the reasons given for it did not meet the text of
the Fifth Amendment. Nevertheless, the U.S Supreme Court affirmed the takings.
b).
In reading the majority opinion as written by
Justice Stevens, the majority hasten to add that they were compelled by law to
make the decision that they did (Somin, 2011). Reference to law in this case
was reference to judicial precedent. The
majority relied on the prior cases of Berman
v. Parker and Hawaii Housing
Authority v. Midkiff. Both cases had previously death with the same issue
in nearly, but not exactly, the same way when the court upheld challenged
takings.
c).
No, I don’t. A reading of the majority
opinion reveals that the judges actually failed to discover that the facts in
Kello were fundamentally different from those in the authorities they cited in
their decision (Somin, 2011). Specifically, the majority did not account for
the fact that Berman and Midkiff were situations in which the
condemned properties were already blighted unlike what was in Kelo. In
addition, the majority overstretched the need to defer to legislatures.
d).
Kelo left discontent in its wake. Opinion
polls indicated that many people were against the decision (Somin, 2011). Legislatures
across the United States quickly enacted laws to ensure that ‘economic
development’ does not succeed as a ground for eminent domain.
Reference
Somin, I. (2011).What if Kelo v. City of New London had
gone the other Way? Indiana Law Review, 45, 21-39.
0 comments:
Post a Comment