Unlawful Supreme Court Decision
UNLAWFUL SUPREME COURT DECISION 4
UnlawfulSupreme Court Decision
UnlawfulSupreme Court Decision
InKelo V. City of New London case, it is evident that the city wasgoing through a serious economic distress. It was performing poorly,and there was a dire need to bring it to life once again. The need toboost its revenues and increase the tax rate necessitated that peoplemore than 1,000 should be employed. The economy being on the verge ofcollapsing, a decision was made for the city to buy land from thecitizens. The sale of property to the private investors would be akick start in the city`s agenda of generating the much-needed taxes.The city also resorted to applying the power of eminent domain toseize the land from the owners. This decision elicited mixedreactions from various quarters. One of the people who refused to letgo of her property was Susette Kelo, but it was still condemned bythe city. The action was in total disregard of the Fifth Amendment ofthe Constitution, and it prompted Kelo to take a legal action.
Kelowas convinced that the decision of the City of New London to seizeher property and selling it to private developers would not amount topublic use. Therefore, she became certain that her predicament wouldbe best addressed by the court since she knew that her rights hadbeen infringed into. She proceeded to the supreme court ofConnecticut, together with other petitioners. The law necessitatesthat nobody should take a property of a person and transfer it toanother even if compensation is guaranteed (Lively & Broyles,2016). Therefore, the petitioners were fervently hopeful that thecourt would rule in their favor since they knew that the actions oftaking over their property were illegitimate under the law. However,the issue was a bone of contention for the court, and it proved toodifficult for it to make a long-standing and a fair decision.
Tothe surprise of Kelo and her colleagues, the court favored the Cityof New London in its ruling in 2005. It asserted that the propertyshould be condemned to let the private investors initiate developmenton the pieces of land in which they stood. The controversial rulingwas in absolute disregard and contravention of the law. It allowedthe property to be used for economic development rather that forpublic use, as stated by the law. The decision elicited unprecedentedpublic outcry since many people believed that it was not justifiableas far as the law is concerned. The ruling of Supreme Court againstpoor citizens was of bewilderment to many who questioned itsauthenticity on if such development would translate to "publicpurpose." Nevertheless, the court put it clear that the functionof economic development is a responsibility of the government, and ithas to be effectuated by all means possible.
Theoutcome was not only controversial but also inconsiderate andinsensitive hence I vehemently disagree with it. There was no justiceapplied in this case, and it amounted to total discrimination ofinnocent citizens. The ruling also showed how there has a high levelof abuse of the eminent domain. Such deliberation puts the future ofpoor citizens at stake if prioritizing economic development at theirexpense will continue. The final judgment was underserved for Kelo,and it demonstrated how poor people are mistreated in the U.S., bythe legal system. Due to the intensity of the ruling, it will foreverbe in the minds of civilized Americans for a long time and will serveas a reminder of how unethical courts can become.
Lively,D. E., & Broyles, D. S. (2016). ContemporarySupreme Court cases: Landmark decisions since Roe v. Wade.Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.
No related posts.