the gov't's taking of private property
"The Government's Taking of Private Property" The Constitution of the United States is based primarily on the ideas of the 17th Century English philosopher John Locke. Locke thought that everyone had natural rights, which included life, liberty, and property. Locke stated "the great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of property" (Locke/ McClaughry 3). He thought that if any of these rights were violated that the violator should make restitution. The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." When the government needs a citizen's private property to build roads or buildings, they compensate the person with money roughly equal to the value of that person's land. The problem of the government taking or restricting a citizen's land arises with regulation of private property. John McClaughry defines regulatory taking "as a governmental confiscation or destruction of economic rights by regulation, without the physical occupation which would trigger just compensation to the owner" (McClaughry 7). The case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coas
This Act helps owners pass their first hurdle by allowing them to have the merits of their case heard in federal court. The Supreme Court's partial versus total taking has made a big impact upon lower court judges however. He goes on to propose that the land still held value because Lucas could enjoy it in other ways, such as camping, swimming, picnicking, or placing a mobile home on it. This was four years after the Beachfront Management Act, which prohibited construction on Lucas' lots, was enacted in 1988. The lower courts are using the decision as a standard by which to judge regulatory property rights cases across the board. South Carolina Coastal Council remains to be told. the Fish and Wildlife Service is going to be paid over $20 million" (Young 1). When someone from the private sector causes detriment to federal lands they must compensate the government for the lost lands. This Act would "reduce delay and expense of litigation by clearly defining when a property owner's claim is ripe" for adjudication (Annett 2). The state of South Carolina saw Lucas' property as unsafe. Justice Blackmun ponders whether the government is going to be able to continue if it must weigh the possibility of compensation when making laws outlawing serious dangers to society. The other relevant part of the Lucas decision is that "if the activity was previously permitted under relevant property and nuisance principles, then the prohibition of the activity would be a total regulatory taking that must be compensated" (Butler 6). Lucas appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. "Long ago it was recognized that all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community, and the Takings Clause did not transform that principle to one that requires compensations whenever the State asserts its power to enforce it" (Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass.
Common topics in this essay:
David Lucas,
Justice Blackmun,
Supreme Court's,
South Carolina,
Supreme Court,
Constitution Nor,
Protection Act,
Management Act,
Act Act,
Wildlife Service,
south carolina,
private property,
supreme court,
south carolina coastal,
lucas south,
natural rights,
regulatory taking,
property rights,
regulatory takings,
carolina coastal,
carolina coastal council,
lucas south carolina,
coastal council,
act passed october,
court south carolina,
|
Acceptance Essays
