Student name
Institution name
Date

Introduction
Question: Is the policy of eminent domain providing for the public welfare, through the taking of privately owned property, using a rightful procedure involving due process and just compensation as it was intended to do when the policy was founded?
Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. Initially, this public policy originated in the Middle Ages throughout the world. It became part of the British common law before reaching the United States where it was then illustrated in the US Constitution in 1791 (Britannica: eminent domain). The Fifth Amendment granted the federal government the right …show more content…

They zoned the locals out, even if they were evicted to pave way for these projects.
The Fifth Amendment Eminent domain clause provides for the idea that private property can be confiscated for public use, so long as the owner gets compensated for it. The piece of property so confiscated can be handed to private developers since the whole city will be beneficiaries of the projects once they are finished. This will lead to the economic development of the cities and the countries’ economy as well. The Fifth Amendment grants the government the right to do this. The fourth amendment clearly put it in white and black that the portions of private property to be taken were idle lands for roadways, not houses. The term private property as used here denotes land. The fourth amendment outstandingly forbids the seizure of private houses.
In Kelo Vs City of New London, dated back to 2000, the city of New London had approved a project that, in the words of the Supreme court of Connecticut, was projected to create more the a thousand job opportunities, increase the revenue and to revitalize the economy of the economically crippled city, right from the waterfront areas to downtown Connecticut. The city had no intentions to open the condemned pieces of land to the general public, and neither were the private lessees of the properties legally entailed to function like regular carriers. The issue was whether the