Affirm or oppose: 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

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." In your primary post, affirm or oppose the proposition and in your peer posts comment, affirm, or oppose.

Numerous recent court decisions in major U.S. cities have decreed that the taking of real property from private landowners in order to build new sport stadiums constitute a legitimate taking of real property for purposes of the government. Do you, in fact, believe this to be true? If true, how is the benefit accruing government interest instead of simply an interest to a professional sports team? Is this a true government taking for public interests as allowed under the constitution?

no plagarism
work citied
500 words min.