Unlike many English language constitutions, the United States Constitution specifically provides for a mechanism for the government to involuntarily take private real property from its citizens. The only requirement that the government must show is that the taking is for a "public" purpose. There is no requirement that the taking be "necessary" or even "reasonable." Any stated government purpose suffices. If the public purpose is demonstrated, then the government, state or federal, may take the property and provide the previous owner with "fair value" or compensation for the taking.
For your discussion in this module, we will use the basic debate form. The proposition set forth is this: "The United States Supreme Court taking powers for real property are just and necessary. No modifications need exist to the takings clause at this time." Should one oppose this? What debate argument should be made?
The supreme court taking powers are just in this case because it gives enough thought to the as question and reaches a conclusion which is better for people.. It has been experience of countries like India that right to property can come in the way of development. There were too many cases in courts and ultimately govt had to remove this fundamental right in India. So such provisions are antidevelopment and can create too much problem. No modifications are required at thus time
Many oppose such action of govt. They say it is coercive and anti people. Peoples property can't be taken without their will. Govt acts like dictators I'm these cases.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.