Entry 8- Amendment 5

1) Source:

Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Will Hear a Property Rights Case Contesting the Limits of Eminent Domain
September 16, 2010

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E5DB1438F93AA1575AC0A9629C8B63&scp=4&sq=private%20property%20be%20taken%20for%20public%20use,%20without%20just%20compensation.&st=cse

2) Constitutional Connection:

Amendment 5: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


3) Explanation for Connection:

In this article, New London in Connecticut sold property to a private developer to build a small neighborhood. But, the people who previously lived on the property that the city sold, rejected the compensation that the city offered them and filed a lawsuit so that their homes aren't wrecked for this project. This case has been brought up to the Supreme Court. Many people argue that people should keep their land if they don't accept the city's compensation and that everyone should voluntarily accept the compensation. Diana Berliner, who is a senor attorney with the Institute of justice, says, "The framers put 'public use' in the Constitution for a reason. A private corporation making a profit is not a public use". The city of New London argues, "the economic revitalization of New London is a valid public use,". They believe that selling the property so that a neighborhood of small homes and offices for research and development will help the economy.

This article clearly demonstrates the 5th amendment because the fourth amendment says that private property cant be taken without fair compensation. The city of New London is trying to sell private property, but the land owners don't believe that they are receiving just compensation, so they refuse to give up their land. This causes a debate because the 5th amendment doesn't specify if the land owner has to agree with the just compensation. But, the amendment does say that we cant be deprived of property without due process of law.

I think that the land owners should have the right to decide whether or not they agree to the compensation being offered to them, after all, it is their property that they paid for. If the 5th amendment hadn't been created, the government could just claim our property that we worked hard for, and use it for their own purposes. If the city of New London is allowed to do this, then in my personal opinion, they are violating the 5th amendment. The city shouldn't just be able to take our property because they believe that they are giving us just compensation. If they do, then the people have no say in what their houses and land are worth.