PLEASE HELP In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause permits a city or state to take private land from one private party and transfer ownership of that land to another private party if doing so furthers economic development. That is, the Supreme Court broadly interpreted the term "public use” in the takings clause to include "public purpose.”

Suppose that the federal government wished to prevent such takings by states and municipalities in the future. Discuss what legislation Congress could enact to do so. Discuss the potential basis for such power.

In the context of the scenario, discuss how such actions by the federal government would promote or interfere with principles of federalism, and discuss the potential constitutionality of such actions

Congress could create a bill that prevent the takings. They could try to pass a bill that made it illegal since they were taking a person’s property which is technically unconstitutional. This would require getting the President to pass this bill. If the president vetoes the bill the congress can vote to overrule the President and put the law into effect anyways. This would be difficult since the Supreme Court already ruled on it, but if they change the wording then they could say that it was not allowed. This would promote federalism. Federalism is the system of government that the United States runs under. This would promote federalism because it would allow for the congress who are elected by the people to make sure that they are protecting the citizens’ rights of the right of property. This would be constitutional since the constitution gives the right to property, and the ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), I technically taking away property from people.

Explanation:

I hope this makes sense and helps.

because everyone tends to get their feelings hurt if they don't agree with something someone is doing and vice versa. it's a major issue that needs to be dealt with, especially in the christian society. everyone thinks that christians hate gay people, because it is a sin, and christians "just hate everyone who sins and every one is going to hell for sinning"(saying that all in a sarcastic tone but i'm just going to go ahead and tell you why everything with that type of view on christians is wrong.

#1. christians do not hate gay people. and if they do, then that is their own personal problem. christians are not supposed to hate anyone. if you hate a neighbor (or any person basically), then that is as if you are hating jesus.

#2. being gay is in fact a sin according to the holy bible. it is in genesis. and no, the fact that it is a sin, does not mean that god hates you. he is grieved that a person is sinning against his word, but he still loves that person. in fact, christians are supposed to love everyone. we are supposed to love our enemies, but hate the sin they are doing. we love you and respect you, but we do not agree with every decision you make, is basically what i'm trying to say.

hope this you ! (:

the committees of correspondence were the american colonies’ means for maintaining communication lines in the years before the revolutionary war. in 1764, boston formed the earliest committee of correspondence to encourage opposition to britain’s stiffening of customs enforcement and prohibition of american paper money. the following year, new york formed a similar committee to keep the other colonies notified of its actions in resisting the stamp act. in 1773, the virginia house of burgesses proposed that each colonial legislature appoint a committee for intercolonial correspondence. the exchanges that followed built solidarity during the turbulent times and bring about the formation of the first continental congress in 1774.