Is Eminent Domain as Practiced Today a Violation of the Takings Clause Essay

Is Eminent Domain as Practiced Today a Violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution - Essay ExampleIt has commonly been argued that uplifted macrocosm is a violation of the taking clause of the fifth amendment of the US constitution. The Taking Clause of the US Constitution The purpose of the taking clause featured in the US constitution is to bar the politics from forcibly making some people bear unrestricted burdens, which is a responsibility of the entire public (Funk 123). On the other hand, the takings clause full requires compensation whenever a government takes away hugger-mugger airplane propeller and converts it for public use. Eminent domain gives the government index to take such property, even with break through fully compensating the underground owners, which is contrary to the Fifth Amendment (Greenhut 65). The fourteenth and fifth amendments taking clauses of the constitution pose similar kernel and effect. However, owners of property can enjoy more protection from the Fifth Amendment takings. Proponents of eminent domain believe that the US constitutions Fifth Amendment takings clause does not prohibit the government from taking private property (Donahue 32). The requirement of public use is normally viewed like a restriction on the power of government over eminent domain as proponents of eminent domain believe. ... The situation of many individuals that work their properties taken by the government is normally made worse given that some of these properties be what they suppose a lifetime investment and therefore beyond monetary value. In this respect, eminent domain denies individuals the expert to enjoy whatever they have worked for irrespective of how much treasured their investments are to them (Sheldom 24). This as a issue lowers the motivation of hardworking citizens who always live in fear considering that their properties may be taken at any time and without warning. Eminent domain has been applied blatantly with power-hungry and utilitarian justifications. Such events occur for character where large companies that remit more taxes to the government are favored against individuals or smaller organizations to an extent that properties are seized from the later unjustifiably for the benefit of the larger companies as noted by Ryskamp (35). This sometimes is done out of the consideration that larger companies create more employment opportunities compared to smaller ones. Unfortunately the application of eminent domain in this respect is flawed as it considers individuals as fungible or substitutable objects. When the government seizes property based on such logic, it means that the government cares not for the welfare of those whose lives are ruined as a result against the constitutional implication that the individuals right is absolute. Some quarters have reasoned that eminent domain helps in the redistribution of property and helps in creating equality and equity in the communion of resources among nationals. This idea is further propagated based on the reasoning that the government helps in