PLEASE HELP In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause permits a city or state to take private land from one private party and transfer ownership of that land to another private party if doing so furthers economic development. That is, the Supreme Court broadly interpreted the term "public use” in the takings clause to include "public purpose.”

Suppose that the federal government wished to prevent such takings by states and municipalities in the future. Discuss what legislation Congress could enact to do so. Discuss the potential basis for such power.

In the context of the scenario, discuss how such actions by the federal government would promote or interfere with principles of federalism, and discuss the potential constitutionality of such actions

Congress could create a bill that prevent the takings. They could try to pass a bill that made it illegal since they were taking a person’s property which is technically unconstitutional. This would require getting the President to pass this bill. If the president vetoes the bill the congress can vote to overrule the President and put the law into effect anyways. This would be difficult since the Supreme Court already ruled on it, but if they change the wording then they could say that it was not allowed. This would promote federalism. Federalism is the system of government that the United States runs under. This would promote federalism because it would allow for the congress who are elected by the people to make sure that they are protecting the citizens’ rights of the right of property. This would be constitutional since the constitution gives the right to property, and the ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), I technically taking away property from people.

Explanation:

I hope this makes sense and helps.

hi!

your correct answer would be a

~courtney

political parties are protected under 6th amendment.