Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Kelo v. City of New London: trampling on private property rights or strong support for states' rights; implications for land use preservation programs

Kelo v. City of New London: trampling on private property rights or strong support for states'... Despite the attention it is given and the emotion it draws from what some fear is its application, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London is a decision about the authority of federal courts to review actions of state governments and state agencies that affect property interests. Government authority to "take" private property is clear, but the parameters of this authority are subject to interpretation. While the Constitution describes takings in simple terms, the meaning of the Constitutional pronouncement is less clear. When can a proposed "taking" involve a public use? Can the language of the Constitution be applied to a context that was never considered when the Constitution was adopted? How should courts, and people, struggle to apply Constitutional provisions to circumstances that could not have been considered when the Constitution was written? These questions raise issues about whether the Constitution is a source of absolute pronouncements that must adhere to the intent of its authors, or a document that evolves with social, economic and political change taking place within "American society". Understanding the foundations that support the decision is a study in understanding the role of separation of power among the branches of government and states' rights. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Interdisciplinary Environmental Review Inderscience Publishers

Kelo v. City of New London: trampling on private property rights or strong support for states' rights; implications for land use preservation programs

Loading next page...
 
/lp/inderscience-publishers/kelo-v-city-of-new-london-trampling-on-private-property-rights-or-39trkJ57oO
Publisher
Inderscience Publishers
Copyright
Copyright © Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. All rights reserved
ISSN
1521-0227
eISSN
2042-6992
DOI
10.1504/IER.2007.053985
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Despite the attention it is given and the emotion it draws from what some fear is its application, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London is a decision about the authority of federal courts to review actions of state governments and state agencies that affect property interests. Government authority to "take" private property is clear, but the parameters of this authority are subject to interpretation. While the Constitution describes takings in simple terms, the meaning of the Constitutional pronouncement is less clear. When can a proposed "taking" involve a public use? Can the language of the Constitution be applied to a context that was never considered when the Constitution was adopted? How should courts, and people, struggle to apply Constitutional provisions to circumstances that could not have been considered when the Constitution was written? These questions raise issues about whether the Constitution is a source of absolute pronouncements that must adhere to the intent of its authors, or a document that evolves with social, economic and political change taking place within "American society". Understanding the foundations that support the decision is a study in understanding the role of separation of power among the branches of government and states' rights.

Journal

Interdisciplinary Environmental ReviewInderscience Publishers

Published: Jan 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.