The "Takings Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is basically a statement that dictates no taking of private property by the government for public use unless just compensation is given. The evolution of this clause has taken on a prominent role in constitutional jurisprudence as a result of several decisions over the past 25 years. The initial clause was placed in the original Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the first application of the clause was applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The case that the Takings Clause was applied to was Chicago Burlington and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). The use of the clause toward the states would not produce incorporation into state and local government actions until over 25 years later when another landmark case Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon set the precedent for using the Takings Clause in state and local government actions.
Pennsylvania v. Mahon involved taking that occurred as a result of a coal company that alleged the land was taken under regulations enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature aimed at ...
The following posting discusses the evolution of the takings clause using a detailed and thorough discussion of relevant and important case law.
The Takings Clause
Discuss the evolution of the takings clause, including an analysis of regulatory takings, eminent domain and inverse condemnation.
Discuss how the issue impacts business practice and the costs of operating business organizations. Discuss if the issue has a significant effect on consumers. Include specific examples to illustrate.
The Evolution of the Takings Clause
• Thesis Statement:
The "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that private property cannot be taken for public use without proper and just compensation. This part of the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from taking private property without paying its owner for it at a fair market price.
1. Regulatory Takings, Eminent Domain, Inverse Condemnation
2. Impact on business practices, cost of operating an organization
3. Does the issue have a significant impact on consumers
Property rights advocates take the position that even this expanded interpretation of the Takings Clause does not protect land owners suffiently. They have proposed federal and state legislation that would go well beyond the Supreme Court's interpretation in requiring compensation.