Kelo vs. City of New London free essay sample

The plan consisted of removing homes to build a new development in order to create jobs, increase tax revenue, and better allow for the city to capitalize on the plans of the major pharmaceutical company Pfizer which had already planned to build a large facility close by. Of the 115 homes, some homeowners, including Susette Kelo, refused to sell and filed suit stating that the removal of their homes violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. New London exercised eminent domain stating the public use stipulation.Ethical Facts: The right to life, liberty, and property could be construed as being violated should a government acquire land in order to increase tax revenue and build improved economic conditions. When looking at the ethical issues of Kelo v. City of New London, John Locke’s â€Å"Lockean Rights† come into question. Business ethics are in question when private land is being acquired only to be given to another private individual(s). Legal Analysis Issues Listing: The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause states that eminent domain must be used with â€Å"just compensation† and that States have the power of eminent domain should the land acquired be used for a meaningful public use. -The question at hand in center of suit is whether or not public purpose could be construed as public use without violating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Under the public use requirement, the government cannot simply take property from one private party and give ownership to another private party. Application of law/legal principles to the case facts:Eminent Domain is the appropriation of a citizen’s private property, usually land, without the consent of that citizen. Eminent Domain is only to be used when land is seized for government use such as highways, military bases, and public utilities; or when the government delegates such land to a third party to be developed and used for public use. The last clause of the Fifth Amendment is the Takings Clause which limits the power of eminent domain use to give just compensation when property is taken for public use.Since the Takings Clause has been incorporated within the Fourteenth Amendment, it applies to all stat es. As stated in Mallor, pp 84-85, four aspects of the Takings Clause are: -Property. The Takings Clause protects other property interests besides land and interests in land. The clause has been held to take personal property, liens, trade secrets, and contract rights. Mallor p. 84 -Taking. The taking clause has a wide range of application due to the government activities included in considered takings.Among the factors courts consider in such ‘regulatory taking’ cases are the degree to which government deprives the owner of free possession, use, and disposition of his property; the overall economic impact of the regulation on the owner; and how much the regulation interferes with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations regarding the future use of the property. Mallor p. 84 -Public use. Once a taking of property has occurred, it is unconstitutional unless it is for public use. Mallor p. 85 -Just compensation.Even if a taking of property is for a public use, it still is unconstitutional if the property owner does not receive just compensation. Although the standards for determining just compensation vary with the circumstances, the basic test is the far market value of the property at the time of the taking. Mallor p. 85. The dispute between Kelo and the City of New London was predicated upon the fact that New London was not acquiring land for public purpose since the land was going to be re-developed for economic purposes. In the Kelo case, Legal Reasoning was prevalent in application of law to the outcome of the decision.Justice Stevens followed the guidelines that it was the courts duty to determine the wisdom of the government’s attempt to exercise eminent domain, and that the court should not allow its decision to be deviated by the hardship that one might incur when unwillingly relinquishing their home or property. The large media influence on the Kelo strengthened the importance of Legal Reasoning even more. The court found it necessary to remove all emotions involved in listening about an individual that was about to lose the home that they had lived in their entire life and make a decision that would be for the better good of the people.In addition, Case Law Reasoning was used to determine the outcome. Case Law Reasoning is when courts take prior cases, also known as precedents, and apply these cases to guide in the decision making processes. This application of taking prior cases to assist in the conclusion of current cases is known as stare decisis. Because case facts often vary, several cases are usually brought up to expand and make it possible to have a factual determination. In addition, several cases are brought up because moral ideas and the acceptance of such will change over time.Having several cases allows one to make a distinction of each one and bring that distinction over to the current case at hand to assist in making an educated decision. The Kelo majority stressed the relevance of two earlier cases that were closely scrutinized when making a determination on New London’s eminent domain exercise. Those cases included Berman v. Parker; 348 U. S. 26 (1954), and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 299 (1984). The Berman v. Parker case was used as both an example and grounds of decision making for several reasons.This case, much opposite of the Kelo case, involved taking properties from both businesses and individuals for public use. Washington D. C used eminent domain to create over 5,000 low-income housing projects, new streets, schools, and new public facilities; all of which was for improved public use. In the case of Kelo, eminent domain was being used along the same lines but rather taking private property from individuals to build structures that would create more jobs, increased tax revenue, and new businesses. Both cases could be argued that they would lead to public benefit.The Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff case was also used as a similarity to the Kelo case. The courts upheld that Hawaii’s long standing land oligopoly had to be broken up for economic benefit. Hawaii used eminent domain to remove a large amount of land owned by a concentrated group of land owners and redistributed this land to a broader group of private residents. In both cases, there were large implications of public purposes prevalent and closely parallel to the matters at hand in the Kelo case. This is an example of how Case Law Reasoning was used when determining the outcome of Kelo v.City of New London. Ethical Analysis Issues listing: -Is an ethically sound decision being made when taking one’s home and property away to benefit other private organizations and other people’s well being? -Is the Rights Theory not being advised? Are the rights to life, liberty, and property being taken away? -Is using Eminent Domain for the sole purpose of economic gain a violation of Business Ethics? Th e court in the Kelo case was faced with making a legal determination based upon the laws at hand without letting emotions or personal opinions get in the way. However, ethics did come into play and cannot be ignored when faced with a case of this nature. The Rights Theory focuses primarily on a certain individual(s) rights to life. The strength of the rights theory is that one’s fundamental rights will be protected unless a greater right were to take precedence over that individual’s. Knowing that one has rights allows for the freedom to live without the fear that government or other large members of their society will overtake your rights.The concern of the rights theory is that it is difficult to draw the line of what rights are within value and what rights are out of the spectrum of the realm. For instance, in the Kelo case, some might argue that the right to maintain your own home and not have it removed should take precedence over any other cause while another can argue that 10 individual property owners rights do not take precedence when several hundred if not thousands of individuals will gain more rights by the remova l of those 10 properties.Another ethical theory involved in the Kelo case would be that of the Justice Theory in which the philosophical principle is embraced for governments to redistribute wealth in order to assist the poor. The strength of this theory is best applied in the business sense, making certain that decision making involves answering the question â€Å"are people getting what they deserve†? It is also strong in the sense that those that are with the least advantages are not trumped upon. The concern of the Justice Theory is equality. â€Å"It treats equality as an absolute, without examining the costs of producing quality, including reduced incentives for innovation, entrepreneurship, and production. Moreover, any attempt to rearrange social benefits requires an accurate measurement of current wealth. † Mallor pp. 95-96. In the Kelo case, the justice theory could be construed as applicable in the sense that the individuals losing their house were doing so for a growth of business while others can argue that the loss of property will bring more equality to the population as a whole by allowing for more opportunities. Utilitarianism would be an ethical parallel closely related to the Kelo case.Utilitarianism takes a decision maker to achieve the highest level of satisfaction for society as a whole. The use of utilitarianism requires the decision maker to weigh the benefits and costs of their actions to everyone in society and thus make a decision predicated on the overall society as a whole. In the Kelo case, it is easily argued that the decision to take property from a small number of individuals would greatly benefit the society as a whole. The courts had to utilize this ethical theory to some extent when making a decision based on the legal ramifications.To the same extent that utilitarianism might harm an individual for the greater good of the society, the decision maker in a utilitarianism environment would also cause harm to themselves if it were for the greater good of society. This can be relayed in the sense of government taking on a burden whether financial or such to benefit the societ y under such government. While easy to determine the strengths of utilitarianism in the Kelo case, (economic society will substantiate a gain through the loss of a smaller number of individual’s homes) it should also be noted that there are weaknesses in this theory as well.While making a decision on the basis of society, it is difficult to measure the extent of pain, suffering, and sacrifices involved to those that are negatively affected for the greater good of society. Once again, the Kelo case is an example of individual(s) that lived their entire 70 years of life in one home no longer having that property to call home. While ethics comes into play with all legal decisions, the Kelo case had several difficult ethical dilemmas at hand. As a result of being decided in the Supreme Court, utilitarianism would be the most dominant of ethical theories utilized in the decision of the Kelo answer.Making a decision to take property from those involved would, in the long run, be of greater economic to soci ety as a whole. The welfare of the population of New London had to be taken into consideration and over-take any emotional connections. While losing property may yield ramifications of emotional distraught to those involved, the decision was not carried out without just compensation for the property being taken. In addition, in a moral aspect, the plaintiffs in the Kelo case were not being left on the street without shelter.In conclusion, the Kelo case is a great example of how to use Legal Reasoning and Case Law Reasoning to argue current cases. Being able to bring up past legal decisions enables those involved to have a clearer understanding of the matter at hand and see it from different aspects. In addition to the legal aspect of the Kelo case, it was an excellent example of how there is immense difficulty when placing ethics as a decision maker in a court of law. Ethical reasoning is morally based and will vary greatly from each individual based on how they were raised and what moral compass they follow.