The relevancy of Supreme Court, case of Kelo v. The City of New London

The Relevance of the Supreme Court Case :Kelo v . City of New London (Your Name (Your University )2008 Introduction Judicial activism is defined as a behavior of the judges who in the performance of their constitutionally granted and mandated duties ,exceed beyond the limits of their authority by “legislating ‘ or creating and amending existing laws for the purpose of imposing their personal ideas of the needs of the society (Hausknecht , n .d . The judges are mandated to act in an objective and impartial manner in resolving any justiciable controversy brought before the courts and by virtue of the principle of separation of powers , the judiciary must only wield and discharge judicial functions . “The branch of government that is endowed with the authority to interpret and apply the law ,adjudicates legal disputes , and otherwise administers justice (West ‘s Encyclopedia of American Law , 1998 . The other functions are to be separately discharged by the other two branches of government , i .e . the Executive , and the Legislative (West ‘s Encyclopedia of American Law ,1998 . The Founding Fathers of the U .S . Constitution were aware of the dangers of judicial activism and the importance of restraint in judicial power . Thus , Madison wrote “to combine judicial power with executive and legislative authority was the very definition of tyranny (Meese III , 1997 . Another danger of judicial supremacy is that of the principle of judicial review . The judges pass upon the constitutionality of laws and read into it their own personal views and biases (Meese III ,1997 . These Supreme Court decisions cannot be overturned except by the constitutional process of amendment . This being the case , the society is being deprived of its own political experience in shaping social and moral issues .Discussion To illustrate this clearer is the case of Kelo v City of New London (2005 . The case involved the Fifth Amendment of the U .S . Constitution . The power of eminent domain or the Takings Clause had been recognized as a `despotic ‘ power .Traditionally , it was used only for situations that necessitate public use where there is public necessity , i .e . power was exercised for bridges , roads and the like . This concept of `public use ‘ was eroded in the case of Kelo [Kelo , et al . v . City of New London , 545 U .S . 4 (2005 )] .The city government approved a city plan that would require the expropriation of private properties for research centers , offices and hotels to be put up for the purpose of spurring economic development [Kelo , et al . v . City of New London , 545 U .S . 4 (2005 )] . The U .S .Supreme Court in a 4-5 decision enlarged and expanded the `public use ‘element of the Takings Clause as to include `public purpose ‘ Thus , the condemnations were for a public purpose and therefore met the `public use ‘ requirement . With this recent decision of the U .S . Supreme Court , all private properties are now subjected to the threat of condemnation for the benefit of private persons . In fact , the state officials become middlemen…

Tags of essay "The relevancy of Supreme Court, case of Kelo v. The City of New London ": , , , , , , , , ,