Originally posted by aretood2
View Post
Summary
In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court ruled that the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment permitted the City of New London to exercise its eminent domain power in taking property from homeowners and transferring it to another private owner as part of an economic development plan. Following precedent from previous cases, the Court broadly interpreted the “public use” requirement to mean “public purpose”—the city was not intending to open the condemned land for “use” by the general public, but a public “purpose” would be served through the benefits that the economic development plan would have on the community.
In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court ruled that the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment permitted the City of New London to exercise its eminent domain power in taking property from homeowners and transferring it to another private owner as part of an economic development plan. Following precedent from previous cases, the Court broadly interpreted the “public use” requirement to mean “public purpose”—the city was not intending to open the condemned land for “use” by the general public, but a public “purpose” would be served through the benefits that the economic development plan would have on the community.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This case has long been one of the main points in my favoring judges who rule based upon the words in the Constitution, rather than pulling law out of thin air.
Comment