Amendment V to the Constitution of the United States

Amendment V to the Constitution of the United States
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Takings Clause: “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Just Compensation Clause: “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
blighted area: An area with abandoned buildings and in disrepair (amended from Black’s Law Dictionary) Source: https://thelawdictionary.org/blighted-area/
Precedent Case discussed:
Berman v. Parker (1954) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government’s power of eminent domain allows for the seizing of private property for the purpose of beautification and redevelopment (i.e.- eliminating blight).
Scott. G. Bullock – Attorney, Institute for Justice: Argued on behalf of Suzette Kelo, et al
Wesley W. Horton – Attorney: Argued on behalf of the New London Development Corporation and the City of New London
Kelo v. New London
Facts of the case
New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Susette Kelo and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically, the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.
Question
Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city’s bad economy?
Conclusion
No. in a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city’s taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a “public use” within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as “public use” despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require “literal” public use, the majority said, but the “broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.'”
For Discussion:
– Open the following web page. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-108
– Read the syllabus from the Supreme Court Case Kelo v. New London (see pdf attached). Read the summary of the case. Then listen (and read along) with the Oral Arguments of the Case made by Kelo’s attorney, Scott Bullock and New London’s attorney, Wesley W. Horton. (1 hour)
– Then listen to the opinion given by the court (Justice Stevens). Read the excerpts from the dissenting opinion (Justice O’Connor). (4 ½ minutes)
The following videos of legal scholars from the Duke University Law School (largely agreeing with the decision) and the Heritage Foundation (largely disagreeing with the decision), the C-Span Washington Journal Episode on the case and libertarian John Stossel’s Fox New Report will give you insight into these concepts.
Duke University School of Law

Heritage Foundation

C-Span: Washington Journal
https://www.c-span.org/video/?193070-5/eminent-domain
John Stossel – Fox News

Answer/Discuss any or all of the following:
What is eminent domain? Is it an appropriate power of the government?
What restrictions – if any – does the Fifth Amendment place on the exercise of eminent domain (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”)?
What was the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London? What principle was established, affirmed or refuted.
Read the Fifth Amendment again. Do you think our founding fathers would approve of the Kelo decision? Does it matter? Does private economic development satisfy the “public use” requirement? Is it appropriate for either the state or national government to seize property from one private entity (an individual citizen like Suzette Kelo) and grant it to another private entity (a corporation like Pfizer)?
Which political body decides what is “public use” and what is not?
Is the “public use” requirement read too broadly, too narrowly or exactly right in the case of Berman v. Parker (1954).
Interpret the political cartoon from Gary Brookins below. Explain its message and meaning?
If you were a Justice on the Court, how would you rule in this case? Do you agree with Justice Stevens or Justice O’Connor? Explain your argument while discussing the tension between “individual liberty” vs. the “public good.”

Last Completed Projects