The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution includes a “Takings Clause,” which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation (Epestein et al., 2020). In this case, the city of New Athens used its power of eminent domain to condemn the properties owned by the little old ladies and sold the land to a luxury condo developer. The little old ladies argued that this action violated the Takings Clause.
The Supreme Court has previously decided that the Takings Clause restricts the government’s ability to take private property, and that a taking of private property must be for a public use and must offer the property owner just compensation. (United States vs. Causby, 1946). In the case of United States vs. Causby, a farmer who possessed a farm close to a US military airport was involved in the case after the farm was made useless because the government built a runway so low over it, killing all of his chickens. According to the farmer, the government’s acts constituted a Fifth Amendment taking without just compensation (United States vs. Causby, 1946). The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the farmer, holding that the government’s actions constituted a taking of the farmer’s property for which he was entitled to just compensation.
Since the city’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, it is likely that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the little old women. The government’s actions in condemning the little old ladies’ properties without just recompense violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, according to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the precedent set in United States v. Causby.
The Court would first look at the Missouri state law regarding voter ID requirements. Missouri Revised Statutes Section 115.427 states that a person who desires to vote in person shall provide a form of personal identification, which includes a government-issued photo ID, such as a Missouri driver’s license or a non-driver ID card (Lieberman, 2019). In this case, the Byrdes were unable to provide a government-issued photo ID because their only ID was from a privately owned correctional facility. The Court would likely look at the language of the statute and determine that a prison ID does not meet the definition of a government-issued photo ID, even if the prison had a contract with the state.
Furthermore, the closure of state offices due to swine fever would not likely be seen as a valid reason to accept a non-government-issued ID for voting purposes. Missouri law requires a government-issued photo ID, and the Byrdes were unable to provide one. Therefore, the Court would likely rule in favor of upholding the voter ID law and denying the Byrdes’ claim.
Generally, the Court recognizes that institutions of higher learning have a compelling interest in achieving diversity in the student body and that race may be one of the factors considered in admissions. In the situation where the affirmative action plan reserves 5% of seats for minority applicants, the court would scrutinize the plan to determine it does not unfairly burden non-minority applicants. The court has previously ruled that a quota system that sets aside a fixed seat number for minority seats is unconstitutional as it is not narrowly tailored and does not allow for individualized consideration of applicants (University of California Regents v. Bakke, 1978).
If affirmative action simply took race into consideration without strict quotas, the Court would use strict scrutiny to determine whether the plan is narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling government interest. Therefore, the Court would likely uphold the plan as constitutional.
Eric Cartman’s rights may have been violated as he provided his oral confession without being informed of his rights. The Miranda rights necessitate law enforcement officers to inform a suspect of their rights prior to interrogation (Epstein et al., 2020). In the case of Missouri vs. Serbert, the Supreme Court held that if law enforcement officers intentionally withhold the Miranda warnings during an initial round of questioning in order to obtain an incriminating statement, and then give the warnings and continue with a second round of questioning in which a similar statement is obtained, the second statement is inadmissible at trial (Missouri vs. Serbert, 2004).
In Eric Cartman’s case, if Officer Barbrady intentionally withheld the Miranda warnings during the initial round of questioning in order to obtain an incriminating statement from him, and then provided the warnings before obtaining his signed confession, then the two-step strategy may be seen as similar to that in Missouri v. Serbert, and his signed confession may also be inadmissible at trial.
References
Epstein, L., McGuire, K. T., & Walker, T. G. (2020). Constitutional Law for a Changing America (8th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781544390642
Lieberman, D. (2019). Election Law on the Ground: Challenges in Missouri. . Louis ULJ, 64, 653.
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S. Ct. 2601, 159 L. Ed. 2d 643 (2004).
United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946).
University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1978).
write