America's Constitution - Assignment Example

Analysis of Michigan Court Decision The major issue in County of Wayne v. Hathcock is about the constitutionality of a municipality to use the Economic Corporations Act to condemn a private property and transfer its ownership and use to a private corporation. This case was filed by defendants (Hancock et al) to seek redress when the defendant (County of Wayne) decided to evict residents living within a two-kilometer radius to pave way for the construction of a technology and bus park. This was to be used for constructing recreational facilities, hotel, corporate mall and conference center. All these were being done with the aim of creating up to 30,000 jobs and help in generating annual tax revenue of $350 million. By taking this action, the plaintiff queried if it was really constitutional. Although it was done under the guidance of the Taking Clauses of the Fifth Amendment, it was challenged for not in a compliance with the public purpose. However, according to the Michigan Comp Laws clause 213.23, a county government has an authority to condemn a private property and use it for public purposes. Meaning, whenever a municipality decides to condemn a private property, it should be used for the activities which are meant for the common good such as creation of employment opportunities to the citizens. So, like in this case, the municipality was constructing the park to help in generating numerous jobs to the people. This would be a good initiative that would help in reducing the high rate of unemployment within the municipality and helping the municipality to increase its revenues through taxation. As clearly spelt out in the article 10(2) of the Michigan Constitution, any constitutional condemnation should be justly done. Meaning, whenever the government seizes a private property, the owner must be fairly and justly compensated. A fair compensation simply refers to giving financial payments that correspond to the current and actual market value of the property as at the time of condemnation (Amar93). Therefore, while planning to build such a big park, the County of Wayne must be ready to compensate all the individual owners whose property has been condemned. After all, condemnation is a constitutional process that is permitted by the law if done for a public purpose. Indeed, County of Wayne v. Hathcock can be compared to Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit in which the city seized private property and transferred its ownership to a private corporation. In order to respond to the high rate of unemployment, the city opted to evict a large number of people from their respective homes to create room for the General Motors to build a plant. However, despite the motive, the action was challenged in the court of law so as to determine if it was constitutional for the city to condemn private property and give it away to a private corporation. Although the city’s actions are incompliance with the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment, it was necessary to determine if the city had not violated individual rights. Questions were raised if the city was constitutionally justified to seize private property and transfer its ownership to a private corporation. It was held that this was a constitutional act because it was done in compliance with the law. The establishment of the plant would help in the creation of employment to the people of municipality (Harper 37). The municipality had not erred since the new plant would be for a public purpose. Provided that fair compensation was given, the project was to go on as planned. This ruling was similar to that of County of Wayne v. Hathcock which had also been done in compliance with the condemnation laws. A similar scenario is evidenced in Kelo v. City of New London in which the city had been accused of violating the eminent domain laws. This followed its action to take private property and transfer it to a private organization for use. Upon a thorough scrutiny of the la, the court ruled that the city had not violated the law. Even if it transferred the ownership of a private land to a private developer, it was in a compliance with the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the action was a genuine one and permissible by the law. By allowing the private corporation to own the land, a lot of benefits would be gotten such as job creation and economic growth (Harper 21). Based on this discussion, it is quite clear that these cases fall under the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. According to this clause, the government is permitted by the law to seize a private property. However, whenever this is done, such property should be taken by the government and exclusively availed for public use. In other words, the condemned property should be used for a project that is aimed at helping the general public such as job creation, revenue generation and economic growth. This is exactly what happened in the County of Wayne v. Hathcock case. The court ruled that the seizure of the private property was aimed at creating jobs to tens of millions of Americans. In conclusion, County of Wayne v. Hathcock is a typical case that shows the application and constitutionality of the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment of the constitution. Although the municipality was accused of ‘trespassing’ to private property, its action was justified by the law because they would be put into public use. If not initiated, there would be more unemployment which the municipality should be dealing with at whatever costs (Amar 72) However, as seen in Kelo v. City of New London and Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, the seized property should be fairly compensated. Having said all these, I would like to express my satisfaction with the ruling. It is constitutional for the individual liberties such as property ownership rights to be infringed for the sake of common good. This is what would be achieved if the projects were completed as they would create lots of jobs and help in growing the municipality’s economy. Works Cited Amar, Akhil. America's Constitution. New York: Random House, 2005. Print. Harper, Timothy. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the U.S. Constitution. Penguin Group, 2007. Print. Read More