Final answer:
Eminent domain does not require an individual license, but rather legal authority. The process is guided by laws and adheres to the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment, which mandates public use and just compensation for seized property. Kelo v. City of New London expanded the meaning of public use to include economic development, leading to legislative changes to protect property rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
Eminent Domain Licensing
Performing the act of eminent domain does not require an individual license, but it does require legal authority. It is the power held by the government or its entities to acquire private property for public use, with just compensation. This process is governed by laws and regulations rather than individual licensing. The Fifth Amendment, through its Takings Clause, ensures property taken under eminent domain is for public use and that owners receive just compensation.
The Case of Kelo v. City of New London
In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court extended the definition of public use to include economic development projects that could provide jobs, shops, restaurants, and other benefits to a community. This decision fueled concerns that eminent domain could disproportionately affect lower- and middle-class property owners. The backlash from this case led to legislative actions restricting eminent domain for economic development, emphasizing the protection of private property rights.
Public Use and Just Compensation
The principle of eminent domain must satisfy two main requirements: the seizure of property must be for public use, and the government must provide just compensation to the property owners. The controversial aspect of this principle is the broad interpretation of what constitutes public use, as seen in cases where private land is taken for economic development, raising ethical and legal debates about the scope of government power and individual property rights.