Johnnie Walker Eminent Domain Case

Thesis Martin Luther King, Jr., through the use of eloquent writing and appeals to emotion, refutes several local religious leaders' criticisms of the his and the SCLC's outside involvement and nonviolent direct action taken to draw attention to and build support for the end of segregation, not only in Birmingham, but all of the United States. Main Points First King refutes idea that he is an outside agitator that doesn’t belong in Birmingham, as he and several members of his staff were invited to the city by a local affiliate organization of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). He also asserts that his involvement there is valid, as “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” as communities are connected and affect each other indirectly.

One of the owners being forced from his property stated, “If the use of the property was going to a hospital or school we wouldn’t love to leave our home, but we would understand. But the idea that they’re taking peoples homes to bestow a benefit on a developer, which is the purpose of these takings isn’t right”(Fox on Atlantic Yards). The Atlantic yard homeowners are being forced off the property to build multiple projects including new basketball complex and other buildings on the property. Libertarians would once again agree that no one should be forced from property that belongs to them, but fair market conservatives would also somewhat agree. The idea of just using eminent domain because the state can is an unjust practice.

Property owners who wish to stop a government agency from exercising eminent domain on their property can attempt to prove that the agency involved did not meet the necessary requirements to start the process. Doing so is possible, but taking on this type of project is intimidating for individuals and can be costly if you don’t know exactly what you’re doing. That’s why it’s so important for southern California property owners who are considering fighting eminent domain procedures to contact an experienced real estate and eminent domain attorney in their area. There are number of potential benefits that can come from challenging the government agency exercising eminent domain procedures against your property. It could delay the project long enough to prevent it from happening altogether.

Eminent domain has been around a long time, codified into the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, protecting citizens from the seizure of private property by the government without just compensation. It is the power of a government agency or limited types of private companies to involuntarily acquire private property rights in exchange for the payment of just compensation (2013). The government’s right to eminent domain is a very big topic. Eminent domain in today’s society is rarely noticed, and what good that comes out of its use is sometimes unknown.

The Right of Eminent Domain Eminent domain -- the right of a government to take private property for public use by the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its authority. The United States uses Eminent Domain to put aside land every year for National Parks (i.e. Yellowstone, Yosemite, Everglades). However, in recent years, the government has been under attack for seizing these lands. Some people argue it’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment which states that any land taken by the government from private property must be given compensation. Because of this, it has become more challenging for the United States government to reserve land for public use.

In 1984 Kitchener introduced five moral principles that are viewed as the cornerstone of the ethical guidelines. The principles are each definite truths in and of themselves. The first principle is Autonomy which means people have the right to live their own lives as their actions do not prevent the well-being of others. They also have the right to act as a free agent as well as the freedom of choice. Then there is the principle Nonmaleficence

McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) was a case that was presented to the supreme court. The issue at hand was that two Kentucky county courthouses displayed the 10 commandments publicly. As a result, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that this religious display violated the first 10 amendments of the Establishment Clause and sued the counties. After that, the courthouse continued to post not one but two displays alongside with the 10 commandments relating to their reasoning assuring the citizens to be on the same page with them. Which according to law, the government must not in any way favor one religion over another, moreover in this case the displays clearly violated the Establishment Clause because they were presented with texts-scriptures from the Bible involving in a particular promotion of Christian religion.

Consequentialist believe that morality is about producing the right overall consequences, and that the action brings about either happiness, freedom or survival of species. Utilitarianism is an example of consequentialism that maximizes utility (happiness). The difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism is that a utilitarian overlooks justice, as long as an utilitarian can maximize pleasure they would do whatever it takes. Consequentialist enjoy maximizing pleasure like a utilitarian, but they also take into account autonomy and justice. A consequentialist believes that determining good by measuring the outcome, if the good for all in the act is greater than the bad for all in the act, it is deemed morally good.

Williams has an issue with the need to look at actions’ consequences to find any value in them. He believes that some actions have innate value regardless of their consequences. He compares the consequentialist’s position to that of a traveler who focuses only on the destination he is seeking to arrive at. Williams states that travelers don’t travel to arrive somewhere, they travel because they find value in the journey itself. There is something in this idea that can be applied to morality.

It judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequence. A non consequentialist won’t think a lot while taking a decision, all they think while taking a decision is that whether this decision will benefit anyone or if it will harm anyone they forget the outcome related to it. He/ She can be selfless while

The Concept of Justice: Utilitarianism Evaluating Justice The actions you decide to take in life have consequences. In an ideal world you will be rewarded for being good, while making bad decisions will be consequences. This is what many fail to realize about legal systems. Many individuals expect to get off easy after committing a crime, when ideally, everyone should be able to distinguish between right and wrong, and understand that there are consequences to unlawful action.

In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting

“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice, it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” ― G.K. Chesterton Many occasions in the United States history have shown that religion has caused many controversial questions. These questions have brought the American Justice System to a running halt, leading society to begin to ponder about the importance of freedom of religion, true meanings of the free exercise and establishment clause, and if there should be limitations imposed on the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs.

I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."

Consequentialist theory followers. Consequentialist theory followers focus mostly on the consequences of the decision and the action. The most famous consequentialist theory is Utilitarianism. This theory follows the principle of utility which assumes that the decision is ethical if it maximizes benefits to the society and minimizes harms.