In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that examined the power of the government in the exercise of the power of “eminent domain” (Scott 119). This power involves the authority of the government to take over the land from property owners forcefully. The guarantee to this power is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, whereby the Federal, state or local representations of the government can forcefully possess or take over land from homeowners.
The question that the decision in Kelo v. City of New London raises is the reasons why the Supreme Court accepted it for adjudication. In this case, the property owner even after fair and just …show more content…
This implies that while there is the separation of powers among the different arms of the government, courts are still inclined to remedy situations whenever the legislature has come up with bad laws. Therefore, the proper role of the judiciary is a constitutional arm of the republic such as the United States that adjudicates disputes according to the law as well as the original public meaning of what is desired by the citizens (Slotnick 1). This also involves the interpretation of the laws as integral parts of the constitution, which should reflect the changes in the society. Therefore, in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the court broadened the meaning of public use to a much inclusive meaning that includes public purpose.
In conclusion, it is important to note that the case of Kelo v. City of New London showed how the judiciary through its courts could interchangeably use the constitution as well as public policy considerations to benefit its citizens. This underscores the Fifth Amendment provisions and the entire constitution that requires that disputes be adjudicated according to the law but at the same time meant to benefit the public. Therefore, the decision in the case to give the City of London to progress with their acquisitions was a sound one as it would