Kelo vs. City of New London

Kelo vs. City of New London - Kyle Granby Professor Kessler...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kyle Granby Professor Kessler Business 130 October 18, 2007 1. The Kelo vs. City of New London, CT case dealt with a dispute over whether or not it was constitutional for local governments to seize homes for private projects, also known as eminent domain. These were private projects that would benefit the community by supplying more jobs or generating tax revenue depending on what the project was. In this case the city was seizing these houses in a working-class neighborhood in order to make a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. Susette Kelo and other homeowners who lived in New London, CT. were fighting the local government saying that it was not for the government to kick them out of their homes unless the purpose was for a definite public use such as roads or schools. So these people sued the city claiming that they had misused their power with eminent domain. This power is limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment. So by misusing this power that would be a violation of these two amendments. 2. The majority decision of the case with a vote of 5-4 was in favor of the City of New London. It was deemed constitutional for the city to seize the property as long as it was for public use. The decision on whether a project could benefit the community was to be made by local judges and not federal ones. Since it is their
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
community they would know the best about what is best for it. Though states can still pass additional laws to restrict the seizing of property if the residents are overly burdened by these actions. 3. The reasoning of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, was that the city’s proposal qualified as public use, because of the Fifth Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens had said, “The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community,
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/10/2008 for the course BUS 130 taught by Professor Kessler during the Spring '08 term at Iona.

Page1 / 5

Kelo vs. City of New London - Kyle Granby Professor Kessler...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online