Corrupting the Fifth Amendment

        Civil Rights are two powerful words that emit the most colorful debates throughout history.  It is what the Romans had striven for amongst themselves, albeit in certain ways.  It is what the Spartans of Ancient Greece thrived upon. And it is now what Contemporary Democracy was made from.  Our Founding Fathers believed that equality amongst the social classes were an important factor to help develop a nation – a nation built for freedom.

        For a couple of years, Eminent domain, a law that gives the government or a private party the right to seize the land of a home/landowner, has caused some concern amongst the citizens of America. Normally, a law such as this would only cause discomfort, but for some unlucky individuals it can mean their livelihood.  A few home and land owners have had to give up their estates to make room for a privte company with ties to the government or for government needs itself.   The Sixth Amendment is clearly broken at this point, stated as follows:
                   
        _{;No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;{ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}}”(Bill of Rights, 5th Amendment)

        Though the government pays the citizen for the land and house it is taking, it does not offer a valid reason for taking said holdings, except that it is for the betterment of the country, also known as Eminent Domain, which is a law ratified in 2005 though it has been done since 1954. (2, para. 2)  There is absolutely no reason for this.  One should be given a choice to whether or not he/she wants to sell their home or, at the very least, both parties should come to an agreement.  To back up my claim, I will be using various online sites and The Bill of Rights.

        Three years ago a case called Kelo vs. City of New London was brought before the Supreme Court.  It involved several member of a Connecticut family that was forced out of their homes so that a privately owned company could develop there.  The Court ruled that the law of Eminent Domain included the government’s authority to take the land or homes of private owner, without the consent of the owner, for the purpose of reselling that land to another private buyer. (2, para. 5)
In another instance, a couple who have lived in their home in Lakewood, Ohio are told that they are to give up their home to make way for expensive condominiums and a high-scale shopping center.  The city mayor, Madelein Cain, has told The Popular program 60 minutes that “All of this is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base.”  When asked whether or not one could consider this a benefit to the public, she goes on to say, “Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely.(3,  para. 9)”  An estimated fifty-five homes, four apartment complexes, and about a dozen businesses are to be torn down to make room for these buildings, but many people are now fighting this plan, thus halting these heinous crimes.  The oppressed I’ve mention often refer to their righst as a citizen to hold land and a home; a right that was given to American citizen by our Founding Father in the Bill of Rights.  Be that as it may, this occurred in mid 2004, one year before Eminent Domain was legally accepted as a law.

        Out of these situations there is none more frightening then the way in which the government and/or companies are able to acquire the land or home.  According to the Attorney general of North Dakota,

        _{“Certain state and local government entities have the power to use the “Quick Take” procedure to acquire property for “right of way.” The “Quick Take” procedure allows the government entity to take immediate possession of the property upon offering to buy it and depositing the amount of the purchase offer with the clerk of the district court in the county where the property is located. The clerk must notify the landowner that the money has been deposited. If the landowner disputes the taking of the property or the amount offered for it, the landowner must appeal to the district court.”} (4, para. 7)

        Not only is this a cowardly thing to do, but it most certainly goes against the 5th amendment in that the rights of the “Landlord” were not recognized.
Though all of these situations are being fought by the people of America, the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez has been setting an example for the past ten years.  Many critics have called Chavez a populist President, a president that makes promises, but does not keep them, and even a socialist president.  But, whatever critics say does not deter the facts that jump in the faces of the people.  Though Hugo Chavez has been using the power of Eminent Domain to take away the lands of the rich landlords, he has given them back to the poor, thus boosting the Venezuelan economy. (5, para. 4)  The people of America could compare President Hugo Chavez to the well known tale of Robin Hood.  “He takes from the Rich and gives to the poor.

        Many people have fought for their rights throughout the existence of the world.  Every person dreams of a freedom that will make them feel part of the world.  I may be the freedom to lead a country, a freedom to help others if one wishes to do so, a freedom to develop one’s talents, or even a freedom to live in peace.  Freedom is exactly what everyone desires.  As America is a country based on freedoms, why deny its citizens the right to live where they would like?