Protecting Public Property: Understanding the Taking Clause in the US Constitution

Introduction

The "Taking Clause" in the American constitution is the 5th amendment that focuses on ensuring public compensations and financial burdens are enjoyed by the entire public and not private or individual property owners. This clause focuses on limiting the power and influence of eminent domains in a specific property ownership deal or field, respectively. The clause highlights the measures that law enforcement should take in case the private property is taken away from the public. This work will provide a clear description of what the 'Talking Clause' entails and how it generally affects the American population.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

This amendment law focuses on ensuring the public property is used correctly in a way that their respective interests and welfares are highly considered. This clause provides property ownership is not violated by private owners. The affected private owners are followed up, and necessary compensations are done in a manner that ensures both parties can benefit from a particular situation. However, the government does not pay full consideration on the intended purpose from the respective area by the private property owner. Hence, the clause ensures the separate individual is compensated justly as per the actual valuation of the following property.

Application of the 5th Amendment to Private Property

The 5th amendment ensures private property owners are not violated or discriminated by the Federal Government as it focuses on providing guaranteeing these respective owners are respected and rightfully compensated by the respective authorities. The separate clause ensures the government is not duped in any deal as the compensation does not rely on the particular purpose the owner had set for the designated region. According to (Malloy, 2016), the respective land claimed is reinstated in that the government determines the role the separate area should be used in a way that it can benefit the public. The private property owner receives new licenses that credit the government as the new owner. The compensation for the property is given in terms of money, and in some cases, the owner is relocated to a new different location consequently to ensure the affected party enjoys the solution plan designed by the government. These procedures are followed through using legal and fair proceedings recognized under the law; hence, this ensures no dubious trial or proceedings are tolerated by the respective authorities involved. This amendment also provides the separate property is solely used for public use by the government; hence, such details need to be adequately addressed in the contract's description. The compensation is also required to entirely rely on the respective property value for the private property. Hence this prevents losses in the transactions as the owner gets a fair amount of how much his or her property is valued at consequently.

Ethical TheoriesUtilitarianism correctly applies to this case as the theory focuses on ensuring both parties can benefit fully from a specific scenario. Hence the government should focus on ways in which the private owner can help from the deal through rightful compensation plans formulated by the Federal Government. The best-case scenarios are evaluated in a way that the respective individual is contented with the compensation plan and more so the government and general public can benefit from the particular purpose designed from the reclaimed space or land. For example, the government may decide to compensate a private owner with same land size in a different location plus compensation money to set up a place in a new area to allow the Federal Government set up a diversion or even a bypass that provides more convenient access to the city. This decision benefits both parties in a way that the government can lay down its infrastructure projects effectively and on the other hand the respective individual can receive exact land space plus additional money to cater for the relocation and valuation costs of his or her property. Hence the population and the government can benefit from this initiative and government plan to be specific.

Deontology also applies to this case scenario in a way that the government may be forced to relocate individuals, private owners to be more specific to achieve their set goals. (Lucas, Van Wee, and Maat, 2016) Assert that this happens and exists in a way that the government is expected to provide social amenities in respective regions and states hence they may be forced to conduct such exercises to deliver critical services such as health amenities, road networks or even educational purposes. Such situations are highly understandable as it is what most Federal Governments are expected to deliver for respective populations. For example, a Federal Government may be forced to evict one hundred individuals to set up a health facility hence such scenarios may be understandable as they might be questioned when they fail to provide such services in a particular community.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the 5th amendment plays a vital role in ensuring fairness prevails in all case scenarios where private properties have to be claimed by the government for public use. Hence this law focuses on providing all parties can benefit from such situations.

References

Lucas, K., Van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2016). A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation, 43(3), 473-490.

Malloy, R. P. (2016). Private property, community development, and eminent domain. Routledge.