Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
52. How should the court rule?
The owner has filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the construction of a surveillance facility on the portion of land at issue without compensation.
Pursuant to this statute, the President has determined that the construction of a surveillance facility on a very small, unused portion of an owner's large tract of land is necessary to safeguard the security of the United States. The construction and operation of the facility will not affect any of the uses that the owner is currently making of the entire tract of land.
In order to combat terrorism, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the President to construct surveillance facilities on privately owned property if the President determines that the construction of such facilities is «necessary to safeguard the security of the United States.» The statute provides no compensation for the owner of the land on which such facilities are constructed and provides that the surveillance facilities are to be owned and operated by the United States government.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
C is incorrect. As stated above, any permanent physical occupation by the government of private property is a taking for which just compensation to the property owner is required. It is irrelevant that in this case the construction and operation of the facility will not affect any of the uses that the owner is currently making of the entire tract of land.
B is incorrect. Constructing and operating the facility on the owner's land would not violate equal protection because the decision to do so was rationally related to the protection of national security, which is a legitimate government interest. Because construction and operation of the facility constitutes a permanent physical occupation by the government of the owner's land, the government would have to compensate the owner for taking his property.
D is incorrect. The Takings Clause does not exempt takings that are necessary to protect a compelling government interest from the obligation to provide just compensation to the property owner. Therefore, in this case, the taking would be invalid without just compensation even if the government could show that the construction of the facility on the owner's land is necessary to protect a compelling government interest in national security.