Eminent Domain

Post Reply New Topic

I am writing a paper on the structural shift in American government as highlighted by the use of Eminent Domain for "public use." If anyone has any ideas, thoughts, or sources, I would greatly appreciate your input.

My abstract so far is this:

The purpose of this paper is to track the evolution of the concept of “public use” from the framing of the Constitution to the recent Kelo v. New London SCOTUS decision. Understanding the definitions of private property and public use as used by the framers of the Constitution, and understanding the modern definitions is important because the differences highlight a structural shift in government responsibilities occurring over the last century. It will examine the role of both local governments and corporations in three high-profile Eminent Domain cases argued before the Supreme Court, and how the outcomes defined the idea of public use.

Thank you.

Contrast public "use" and public "interest"...Frame that contrast within the confines of the Constitution...free of "emanations and penumbras"

eminent domain is nothing less than making it legal to steal

Yes, I was planning on contrasting Public Use and Public interest--I am glad you thought it was important as well.

As far as Eminent Domain being a legal way to steal--well, as it has been used over the past century or so, you are correct. I believe that the clause was put into the fifth amendment because the idea of private property was so important to the Founders, and that it was there was of securing a sort of promise that no government entity would be able to take the property of another unless (a) it was deemed a necessary and beneficial to the PUBLIC (not just private investors) and (b) that the owner gets "just compensation," or gets paid what the market would have paid.

But I cannot just turn in a paper that consists of eleven words; I have to substantiate my opinion.

I live in Connectitcut and at one point lived about two miles from were the kelo Vs New London houses are but now live further down state. Their has been a big backlash and rightly so in the state including the proposed banning of it for economic reasons and at least one person running this fall for state rep, who I know personally who is using it at one of his main points. As they are tring to take his property to make a marina and incress property values. My Greatgrand parents had there house taken for interstate 84 and got little in return but at least that was a real public works project not this new sh## they are tring to pull now

Eminent domain ultimately reflects a change in governmental ideology since the founding of the US. Many of the founders of the US would find eminent domain to be a great threat to personal freedom and ultimately a threat to their beliefs which tended to be based upon classical liberalism and the enlightenment. If a central bank is a threat to Thomas Jefferson, then the right for governments to take property is a cause for revolution. Ultimately, a great fear from the start of the union was the gain of power by the government and its ability to oppress individuals which can be noted from the whole debate over the constitution. Eminent domain has likely come to exist because of progressive virtues that seek to allow governments greater power out of the belief that they will do good for the rest of society. At least, that is my take on this issue.

Awesomelyglorious, I was hoping you would reply. I agree, completely. It is also interesting the "Great Good" usually consists of a corporation that adds a little tax revenue...but what about the people who no longer pay income tax, or now spend more money commuting to work? I find the idea of Eminent Domain repulsive. Private property is the foundation for freedom, it is a right inherent to every human being. Property is the basis for any economic system, it's just who is in control of the property that differs. And I would rather be in control of myself than to abicate that control to some centralized authority. I also find the idea of someone "choosing to good for me" to be morally repugnant. I think my paper is going to (a) define private property as classical liberalism (Founding Fathers) viewed it (b) define the role of government as classical liberalism viewed it AND how around the 1930s with Keynes and FDR there was a huge structural shift in government responsibilities (c) compare the Founding Father's idea of Public Use with the Supreme Court's idea of Public Interest, and (d) well, I haven't figured it all out, but that is what I have so far.

True, and this great good also seems to represent progress in the eyes of many, however, this also represents a lack of consideration of human rights and interests that from a rule utilitarian perspective is very threatening. I do not find the fact that an outside authority has control so much morally repugnant as I find the fact that such outside authority control is a danger to human welfare and most certainly my welfare. The idea you have listed sounds good as the time of FDR is when this shift becomes the greatest and most notable, you could even draw from the idea that such ideas of public benefit are a danger to freedom in a Road to Serfdom, why was FDR respected by the fascists type of sense.