US Constitutional Property Rights
The Founding Fathers of the United States knew and understood that private property was the very basis of freedom and prosperity. |
Sponsored Links :
|
Therefore, they went about ensuring that common law, state law and the US Constitution would protect the property rights of people so that they could use, buy or sell property without any hindrances or obstacles.
The US constitutional property rights are protected by the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the US Constitution, the state or federal government can only take private property of an individual for public purposes after ensuring that proper legal process is followed and the individual is compensated in a reasonable manner. However, many believe that in the modern times US constitution property rights have been severely put in jeopardy; and the US Supreme Court has yet to take steps that these rights are not violated. That is why the US is witnessing a rise of property rights movement. Which could be the reason why there is so much pressure on the Congress to come up with a bill to set standards on property rights so that the courts across the country would be able to handle complaints when state or federal governments are accused by private citizens of violating US constitution property rights.
According to research, the compensation that the government gives for taking property has always been inadequate. Therefore, the clause of the Fifth Amendment is broken. In addition, when states take property from an individual, it is invariably for private use by the government and not for public use, which again breaks the clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The US Supreme Court has given rulings when US constitutional property rights have been infringed. However, these rulings have not been consequential. Some individuals received compensation, while others did not.
If we look around, property owners get compensation only when the title of the property is taken by the government. However, when the property is invaded through a government order permanently or temporarily, the property owners do not get compensated.
However, in 2004, a high profile case, Kelo vs. City of New London grabbed the headlines after the city condemned the property owned by Susette Kelo, but then transferred it to another private owner. The city did this because they felt that the other owner could make better use of the property. This case prompted 40 states to change their property rights laws, but in doing so now property rights vary across these states.
Experts believe in order to resolve this issue, the Congress should take steps to address private property rights law rather than trying to address the public law of property mentioned in the US Constitution.
More Articles :
|
