Page:Resources LibraryArrow iconCategory:Current EventsSan Antonio bar owner fights back against threat of eminent domainJan 31, 2023How should the government use eminent domain to balance individual property rights with the public good?External ArticlesRead Full Article >>Related ContentPrevious slideNext slideVideo iconVideoThe Fifth Amendment | BRI’s Homework Help Series6 MinWhat protections does the Fifth Amendment provide, and why did the Founders believe them important enough to enshrine in the Bill of Rights? Our latest Homework Help video explores these questions and provides students with a succinct overview of the essential information regarding this amendment.E LessonKelo v. New London (2005)20 MinKelo v. New London (2005) One of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings of the past year was the decision in Kelo v. New London (2005.) The Court held that that the phrase “public use” from the Fifth Amendment can be interpreted as “public benefit.” Therefore, the government can take private property from an individual in order to turn it over to a private developer if the taking will result in “economic development” for the regionLessonKelo v. New London (2005)5 ActivitiesCase background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London. Dealing with eminent domain and whether the government can take private property and give it to a private developer, this lesson asks students to evaluate the Court's ruling in the case.E LessonLucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992)20 MinThe Founders considered private property rights to be an important basis for all other individual rights, but believed that the federal government was empowered to take private property “for public use,” as long as just compensation was paid to the owner.LessonLucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)4 ActivitiesCase background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Dealing with the "regulatory taking" of property, this lesson asks students how much they think the government should be able to regulate property before it becomes a "taking" requiring just compensation.E LessonQuincy Railways v. Chicago (1897)20 MinThe landmark case we explore this month is Quincy Railways v. Chicago (1897), which illustrates the doctrine of incorporation, or the application of Bill of Rights protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Video iconVideoThe Fifth Amendment | BRI’s Homework Help Series6 MinWhat protections does the Fifth Amendment provide, and why did the Founders believe them important enough to enshrine in the Bill of Rights? Our latest Homework Help video explores these questions and provides students with a succinct overview of the essential information regarding this amendment.
E LessonKelo v. New London (2005)20 MinKelo v. New London (2005) One of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings of the past year was the decision in Kelo v. New London (2005.) The Court held that that the phrase “public use” from the Fifth Amendment can be interpreted as “public benefit.” Therefore, the government can take private property from an individual in order to turn it over to a private developer if the taking will result in “economic development” for the region
LessonKelo v. New London (2005)5 ActivitiesCase background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London. Dealing with eminent domain and whether the government can take private property and give it to a private developer, this lesson asks students to evaluate the Court's ruling in the case.
E LessonLucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992)20 MinThe Founders considered private property rights to be an important basis for all other individual rights, but believed that the federal government was empowered to take private property “for public use,” as long as just compensation was paid to the owner.
LessonLucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)4 ActivitiesCase background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Dealing with the "regulatory taking" of property, this lesson asks students how much they think the government should be able to regulate property before it becomes a "taking" requiring just compensation.
E LessonQuincy Railways v. Chicago (1897)20 MinThe landmark case we explore this month is Quincy Railways v. Chicago (1897), which illustrates the doctrine of incorporation, or the application of Bill of Rights protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
