Paragraph 1:
Topic Sentence: The process of eminent domain is completely legal as seen by its inclusion in
the U.S. Constitution and the ruling in a prominent, recent Supreme Court Case.
Sources w/brief explanation:
Source A (U.S. Constitution)- Explicitly states, “nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.” This indicates that as long as the government provides
people with reimbursement, eminent domain as a function of the government is 100% legal.
Source C (Kelo decision)- In a 2005 Supreme Court Case, the Court ruled in favor of the
city of New London which was defending its use of eminent domain. The city’s conduct proved
that within those limits, eminent domain can still function properly and legally.
Paragraph 2:
Topic Sentence: An irrational fear of the institution of eminent domain has stemmed around the
nation. When investigating the basis for these fears, it is easily deduced that there is no need to
live in constant fear of eviction, displacement, or any other stigma related to the rare use of
eminent domain.
Sources w/brief explanation:
Source D (Koterba, political cartoon)- provides a political cartoon which addresses the
major concerns some hold with eminent domain. The insinuation that the fear of the “monster”
that is eminent domain is misinformed is prominent. Koterba’s cartoon illustrates the divide
between the irrational and rational. The cow portrays sense and reason while the chicken
represents the illogical.
Paragraph 3: Counter Argument
Topic Sentence: Some may argue against eminent domain for the preposterous claim that
eminent domain is a tyrannical abuse of government power which strips the American people of
entitled rights, yet these governments which employ eminent domain do indeed use a majority of
acquired land for improved community amenities.
Sources w/brief explanation:
Source B (60 Minutes)- Although a heartfelt story of a family which would be potentially
upended is initially presented, the article later states the city’s intentions for the land which
would logically benefit the community. The fact that the city is in dire need for money which
could be infused into the local economy through new building projects obviously sways the
logical compass of this situation in the city’s favor.
The process of eminent domain has been proven to be completely legal as seen in its
inclusion in the U.S. Constitution and the ruling in a prominent, recent Supreme Court Case. For
example, the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly states, “nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Source A). This amendment
indicates that as long as the government provides people with reimbursement, eminent domain,
as a function of the government, is 100% legal. Therefore, the government is entitled to claim
any land it deems fit at a justifiable value. Secondly, in a 2005 Supreme Court Case, the Court
ruled in favor of the city of New London which was defending its use of eminent domain against
a resident (Source C). The court’s ruling validated the veracity of the city’s claims. The city’s
conduct proved that within reasonable limits, eminent domain can still function properly and
legally. Therefore, as determined by the Supreme Court, eminent domain is in no way a violation
of any law or any personal right. The Constitution and the Supreme Court have both noted the
notion of eminent domain exists as a written law in the U.S. which serves to provide for the
greater good of the nation.
The United States government has the jurisdiction to seize any and all private property
for public developmental projects. The fifth amendment of our constitution reads, “nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Source A). This would
seem as cut and dry as any other law. Yet, the debate over stipulations regarding eminent domain
lasts to this day. The interpretation of the fifth amendment causes unforeseen problems regarding
the definition of terms such as “public use” and “just compensation.” Questions arise over what
developments are considered beneficial to the general public and what is the value of
compensation for one’s home. These specifications, however, do not invalidate the law and
therefore must be left to the interpretation of the judicial branch. In analyzing news stories, court
cases, and political cartoons, it can easily gathered that eminent domain exists as an essential
government power which allows our leaders to provide towards a greater good only when used
properly.
