If the government were to use eminent domain to seize personal property for a public park, would this be acceptable, according to the fifth amendment?
yes, because the fifth amendment states that anyone can take property for any reason.
yes, because the property is going to be used for a public good or service.
no, because eminent domain cannot apply here.
no, because the government did not get the owner’s permission to take the property.

Yes, because the property is going to be use for a public good or service.

Explanation:

the fifth Amendment. states that the government can seize private property for public use. if the property is going to be used for public use and there is a compensation provided for the owner of the property. If the owner refuses to sale it for public use, then the government can use its power of eminent domain and condemn the property, to force the sale of it for public use.

dirty, contaminated water

contaminated food,

chlostrophobic living spaces,

mice infestation,

etc,

in his book, the riddle of the rosetta stone, james giblin talks about how there was a young british polymath and physician named thomas young who made a lot of advances on the deciphering of the rosetta stone. he says that even though young made a lot of mistakes because he was working under false assumptions, he also made huge contributions like deciphering three out of the seven symbols (more than anyone else before him). young published his findings and continued his good work but he wasn't able to progress much further due to some unfavorable situations, he still laid the basis for many other scholars and of course for the man who has been generally known to have deciphered it, jean-françois champollion