The takings clause indicates that private property can be seized only if the property in question is being taken for public use. Does "public use" mean using seized property only for pure public goods and services? Explain your answer
What will be an ideal response?
Public use does not mean using seized property only for pure public goods and services. Public use has been interpreted to mean that the seized property confers some benefits to the public, that it will result in improvements to public safety, health, and welfare, and that it improves the lives of those living in a community. These can, and have, all been accomplished through eminent domain with the transfer of private property to new private owners.
You might also like to view...
After firm A acquired firm B, it lowered the prices for the goods produced by both firms. This can increase profits if the goods are
a. Substitutes b. Complements c. Not related d. None of the above
In contrast to the post-World War II period, before 1940 the government
a. actively intervened in the economy for stabilization purposes. b. used aggregate demand management to avoid recessions. c. rarely intervened in the economy to influence inflation or unemployment rates. d. used government ownership to guarantee full employment.