NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The Founding Fathers have promoted both capitalism and the protection of private property as the inalienable part of the US Constitution, and it is evident when we analyze the document at issue. Not only they ensured that capitalism would be predominant economic system in the United States, but also composed the Constitution in such a way to make sure that as time goes by those principles would be so much enrolled that new amendments would be passed in order to keep them up and adjust to changing times. When we take a closer look at the Original Constitution, the amendments made to it, and various court cases involving private property, it is evident that capitalistic values (and private property is one of the most essential values attributed to capitalism) are still been upheld. The Constitution of the United States is based primarily on the ideas of the 17 th Century English philosopher John Locke.
Locke thought that everyone had natural rights, which included the right for private property. Locke stated the great and chief end, therefore, of mens uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of property (Mcclaughry, p. 3). He thought that if any of these rights were violated that the violator should make restitution. The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Richardson, p. 17) When the government needs a citizens private property to build roads or buildings, they compensate the person with money roughly equal to the value of that persons land. The problem of the government taking or restricting a citizens land arises with regulation of private property. John Mcclaughry defines regulatory taking as a governmental confiscation or destruction of economic rights by regulation, without the physical occupation which would trigger just compensation to the owner (Mcclaughry, p. 7).
The case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council is an example of regulatory taking. In the case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Lucas bought two adjacent lots on the coast of the Isle of Palms in South Carolina, only to have the land restricted by the state, which prevented his intended use of the lots. Lucas argued that the states restriction of the land constituted taking without just compensation. The South Carolina Court of Common Pleas agreed with Lucas and awarded him $ 1, 232, 387. 50.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina disagreed with the lower court, and saying that the restrictions were designed to prevent serious public harm so no compensation was necessary, even if it did affect the property's value. Lucas appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States decided on Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council in June of 1992.
This was four years after the Beachfront Management Act, which prohibited construction on Lucas lots, was enacted in 1988. An amendment was made to the Act in 1990 that would allow construction in special situations. Lucas could possibly appeal to the Council and receive a permit to build on his lots at the time of the Supreme Court hearings. Lucas argued that the deprivation of use of his land from 1988 - 1990 amounted to a taking. The Supreme Court decided to grant certiorari.
According to Locke, the governments purpose is to protect and enforce peoples natural rights. One of the natural rights, according to Locke, is life. The coastal area of the Isle of Palms that Lucas lots were on has been plagued with floods. Justice Blackmun stated that the land was under water from 1957 until 1963. In addition, between 1981 and 1983, the Isle of Palms issued twelve emergency orders for sandbagging to protect property (Blackmun 2).
The state of South Carolina saw Lucas property as unsafe. Long ago it was recognized that all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owners use of it shall not be injurious to the community, and the Takings Clause did not transform that principle to one that requires compensations whenever the State asserts its power to enforce it (Richardson, p. 39). The states prevention of building on the site in question would not only foreseeable save the beach from erosion, insurance and federal aid money, but possibly lives. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that when all value has been taken from property that the owner must receive compensation for it.
The question still stands as to whether the state caused the land to become valueless by restricting the building upon it. Justice Blackmun argued, yet the trial court, apparently believing that less value and valueless could be used interchangeably, found the property valueless (Richardson, p. 51). He goes on to propose that the land still held value because Lucas could enjoy it in other ways, such as camping, swimming, picnicking, or placing a mobile home on it. The value of the property often lies in the eye of the beholder. In Colorado, a piece of legislation is being proposed that might become a model for other states where property rights are concerned. The Private Property Protection Act would allow a landowner to seek compensation when a regulation takes away more than fifty percent of the lands value (Mcclaughry, p. 4).
This act hopes to establish a standard for the most serious regulatory takings and to afford a method of relief for a landowner whose rights have been taken according to Mcclaughry (Mcclaughry, p. 8). In 1997, Senator Hatch introduced a piece of legislation called the Citizens Access to Justice Act. This Act would reduce delay and expense of litigation by clearly defining when a property owners claim is ripe for adjudication (Richardson, p. 63). This piece of legislation would help speed the process that is so costly for property owners. The Private Property Rights Implementation Act was passed in October of 1997. This Act helps owners pass their first hurdle by allowing them to have the merits of their case heard in federal court.
The Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act, also passed in October of 1997, helps citizens pass the second hurdle by resolving the jurisdictional question for federal courts (Richardson, p. 64). Thus, the Constitution that was shaped by Founding Fathers, which promoted capitalism and private property, is still adequate now; moreover, new laws and amendments are added to make sure that the ideas of the Founding Fathers are alive nowadays.
Free research essays on topics related to: private property, supreme court of the united, south carolina, founding fathers, court of the united states
Research essay sample on Supreme Court Of The United Court Of The United States
