Author: molson


The Knick United States Supreme Court decision is gleefully awaited by those hoping to modify the misbehavior allowed because lower courts simply will not appropriately review claims which had the potential to be in the state court, but claims, even when valid, would never have received an award. After all, one of the justices asked the lawyer whether this would cause an inundation of land use cases in the Federal court system.

Thankfully, this scrivener was not presenting the argument.  One has to wonder whether the notions of both Just Compensation and Due Process were ever in the ambit of the Justices’ question.  Should we simply not have litigation to resolve our constitutionally protected rights?

The argument that there will be a proliferation of litigation simply does not make sense.  More likely, a recognition that there is a responsibility and financial liability will provide governments with the decision of whether a governmental unit should proceed in taking away an individual’s basic constitutional rights to property!

River Raisin Battlefield Eminent Domain Process Raises The Taking Question

In some of its acquisitions, the Federal government will take a position that it will not buy property through eminent domain. This creates a “waiting” game. Examples are the expansion of the military base in Battle Creek and the River Raisin Battlefield Park upgrade to one which owners will be left fallow while others are purchased because people desire to sell. This raises an issue of whether no expropriation process creates a “blight by project” result. This is somewhat akin to the old urban renewal inverse condemnations, where the ‘slow take’ destroys the community. The activity is illustrated in Cleveland v Carcione and Detroit v Cassese 376 Mich. 311, 136 N.W.2d 896 (1965). One can expect the issue of federal “delayed” acquisitions and their effect on the remaining properties to never be challenged only because the activity is so dispersed throughout the country.

When does originalism in the Fouthteeth Amendment start?

The ‘Originalism’ of what was contemplated by the Constitutional scriveners was at least modified by the Fourteenth Amendment with regard to State activity.  The Karl Spence comment written for American Greatness describes how an originalist court would have responded to Kelo by probably not reviewing the case.  However, the originalist court would have to deal with a Fourteenth Amendment.  The question is one of whether the Fourteenth Amendment intended to apply to Public Use and Just Compensation clauses to Stated activity.

The argument takes one back to a determination of whether there are “private property rights” which are placed on a different place than limitations created by the refusal to allow government interference with other personal rights and liberties.  Are the First Amendment Freedoms so far different from general protections contemplated? Is there a Right to Privacy which shall act as a  limitation on State activity?

In any event, the Spence note offers an interesting and thoughtful perspective.

H&R Firm Awards Announced

Many colleges and universities already have MOUs in place with local law enforcement authorities covering a variety of areas.  Our conversations with campus administrators, campus police, and law enforcement have underscored the need for additional tools and strategies that are specifically tailored to the dynamics of sexual assault on campus, as well as the needs of sexual assault survivors.  The task force is providing this sample MOU with that in mind.

Continue reading “H&R Firm Awards Announced”