Kelo v. City of New London Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2015
- Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Kelo v. City of New London | 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
Following the closure of a federal naval center in New London, Connecticut, the City faced significant economic challenges and eventually was designated a “distressed municipality” by the state. The City had been hoping to entice a large pharmaceutical company (Pfizer) to build a global research and development headquarters there. The state’s municipal development statute authorized taking private property for economic development projects, and the City promised to use its eminent domain power to acquire the land that would become part of the redevelopment area to benefit Pfizer. Officials claimed the project would benefit New London in the form of jobs, increased tax revenues, and the revitalization of economically depressed areas.
In Kelo v. City of New London, Susette Kelo and nine other property owners (plaintiffs) sued the city in state court, challenging the use of eminent domain for the project. The plaintiffs argued that, because their properties were being taken for sale to private entities, the takings were not “for public use” as required by the Fifth Amendment.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.com/cases/kelo-v-...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/kelo-v-...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel ► ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Feral cat colony is still public use! 😂
Thank you for posting this!!!
I love these animations.
In your opinion, how has this court case impacted American society?
Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas … always concerned with the Constitution (please read it if you haven't. It is very short and invaluable in forming a reasonable understanding of many of our current issues), were clear in their explanation and reasoning. Other Justices seem to have found their individual way around the Constitution's clearly understandable language in order to satisfy what it appears was the more popular opinion of the time. As the video briefly explains, betraying the principles upon which our nation was founded never yields a positive result.
CAK's Dad,
You are so right about the abuse of power exhibited by our courts when the interests of wealthy special interests come up against the rights of the people as a whole and as individuals. If our constitution was interpreted literally first, by founders spirit second, and all other things last, we would not have much debate about gun rights, abortion rights, search and seizure protection against both government and private entities, and other basic rights. While not absolute, rights may only be limited as per the US Constitution to balance the exercise of rights equidistant between people.
Favoring private theft of one's home has never been popular. The US Constitution clearly forbids any taking of private property for any purpose other than public use, and also mandates just compensation, which clearly means full value before the eminent domain seizure was announced and all expenses incurred by the seizure. If the framers intended "public benefit" to be included, they would have worded the clause to say "public benefit."
Our current legal concept of just compensation is abysmal. Big corporate and wealthy private developers can now seize one's home for their private benefit, pay market value after the seizure was announced which is next to zero, and pay nothing for other expenses such as moving, transfer taxes, and other real expenses incurred when someone is forced to relocate. In essence, our business community wants capitalism when it is to their benefit, and communism when it is to their benefit, with We The People paying for their abuses of US. There is a reason why limousine liberals keep pushing for gun control, and it is not about our safety but rather the safety of those who sorely deserve some violence to teach them not to screw the US public.
The framers were keenly aware of the abuse of power by the rich and the politically connected. The framers were keenly aware of the language manipulations perpetrated by the rich and powerful to justify their oftentimes corrupt and dishonest behavior. The framers wrote the narrow phrase "public use" for a reason, and that was to prevent exactly the sort of legal dances which led to the evil Kelo vs New London decision.
The only correct interpretation of the US Constitution is first and foremost compliance with the exact language, then compliance with the spirit as stated in contemporary literature such as the Federalist Papers, and last but not least to respect human rights not specifically enumerated but implied in the 9th and 10th amendments. The US Constitution was written and adopted by people who were keenly aware of the abuses of unearned and undeserved power committed by those who had attained wealth and position without permission of the people. Our founders knew the true meaning or the words "never again," and they meant it at gunpoint if necessary when they wrote the US Constitution.
I’m left-leaning and I consider this situation completely absurd. Eminent Domain should be the absolute last resort in any situation. If this is to be used, property owners should be paid more than the market value of their property and additional damages.
The aftermath of the case is the EXACT REASON WHY THIS BULLSHIT CANNOT STAND TO THE SIMPLE READING OF THE CONSTITUION. YEAH, they took their homes for PUBLIC USE as a FUCKING FERAL CAT SANCTUARY
Their lives uprooted, their property gone, they were inevitably given less than truly deserved as just compensation, the fucking company lied and pissed it away anyway, and the rights of americans was trumped in order for a private company to have more rights than them to their own property.
WoW
I have a project on this lol thanks
So how much economic development was there? Kelo must be pissed when she looks at the site of her former home.
Summary: Supreme Court (5-4) chooses to bend the Constitution beyond the breaking point (COTUS oath violation) to revitalize the New London economy. --- Expanded summary: There were good intentions involved, but the Justices 5-4 actually construed the words (broaden the meaning of) "public use" to include private use by Pzier (the absurdity), which is in contradiction with the 5th Amendment ("private use" is not "public use") and 4th Amendment (unreasonable seizure of property) violation. It opened the door to state and local government being able to take private property using Eminent Domain for private use (forcibly transferring private property to a company or developer). It was so obviously unconstitutional, lower court judges and legislature had to step in to limit Kelo v New London, which was very unpopular. Analysis beyond the law: Unbeknownst to most, the main problem may be the location of the waste water (sewage) treatment plant. Maybe U.S. Naval Undersea Center didn't want to be around treated waste water. It probably helped keep the housing cost low (low-income housing). Something the city planners should be aware of. You know the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Government good intentions made Kelo's life hell, and now you know what the phrase means.
You can look up what 9th Amendment says. But it says basically "The enumerated Amendments in the Constitution, of established rights, shall not be interpreted to deny, or lessen other rights retained by the people." Words you need to lookup are "certain" and "construe" and "disparage" when you are trying to decipher the 9th Amendment. Kelo v New London falls in the category of 9th Amendment violation. --- also looking at bad faith or criminal intent, Kelo opened the doors to city planners being able to use Eminent Domain to steal (SP?) property for private business. Kelo has way too many Constitutional violations, 3 counts where only 1 violation would be sufficient to declare it unconstitutional. Theft of property is a crime, even if the owner is compensated, but against the will of the owner.
We have a problem here with professed interests in developing a homeless shelter in addition to a fraudulent claim to the property forcing a relocation of the homeless people to a remote place that makes it difficult to move around, and that only offers bad food that makes them sick. During the move the people were forced to throw out their property without any due process hearing, and without compensation. I believe that the forced dispossession of property in the interests of development based on fraud would be a question of eminent domain. These people have been cheated and hurt and want to challenge the relocation and dispossession and demand restitution. I also believe that the interest was to murder these people.
The government has the ability to take private property and give it to another private enterprise because this other enterprise will use it better for the public good than the owners. Roughshod paraphrase but still - This is scary!
Greed & Dangerous Acts
Dangerous Crimes & Greed...Horrible Acts...Stolen Property & Tax Campaign Corruption
This is insane to think that the Supreme Court can decide what our rights are, that is false because their there to protect and serve our rights it’s just that simple