Which of these scenarios are constitutional according to the courts interpretation of eminent domain? selet all that apply. -a state extends a needed highway and pays fair prices for houses that are in the way of the planned expansion -a town wants to build luxury condos by a waterfront, so it takes older houses down to make room -a town needs to build a fire station in order to meet city ordinances, and paid fair market price for the lot seized, but did not out bid competitors -a town needs to enlarge a school, and does not pay for the houses it tears down to do so because taxes from that district do not cover the cost of reimbursing the homeowners.

Eminent domain refers to a state power, granted by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, through which the state can purchase a private property and direct it to public use, in exchange for a fair compensation for its owner.

According to this definition, the constitutional scenarios are the following:

A state extends a needed highway and pays fair prices for houses that are in the way of the planned expansion A town needs to build a fire station in order to meet city ordinances, and paid fair market price for the lot seized, but did not out bid competitors

Both are legal transactions because the previous privately owned spaces were converted for public use and a fair price was paid to the former owners (fair is OK, it does not need to be the largest price offered)

The other two are therefore illegal transactions:

A town wants to build luxury condos by a waterfront, so it takes older houses down to make room --> It is illegal because the purpouse of taking down the older house is not related into converting the space for public useA town needs to enlarge a school, and does not pay for the houses it tears down to do so because taxes from that district do not cover the cost of reimbursing the homeowners. --> It is illegal because a fair compensation has to be paid to the owner of the property.

Where are the choices?