In the year 2005 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the constitutionality of a city taking private property, whereas paying the owner just compensation, and selling it to a private developer as part of a plan to stimulate the city's weak economy (Kelo versus City of New London). Respond to this three part problem in your initial post:
a) Describe the rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo (the majority opinion by Justice Stevens).
b) Describe the rationale of Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion.
c) Assess both the majority and minority rationales. Describe and validate your evaluation. Comprise consideration of these factors:
- The Supreme Court's traditional approach to the 'public use' need for takings
- The relative competence of the Supreme Court versus local governments to determine what is a 'public use' to validate the taking of private property.