Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Legal
- Creators: Braselton, James
Description
This focuses on recent changes in Arizona eminent domain law regarding the question of whether a use be "truly public." In light of the landmark decision in Bailey v City of Mesa--often lauded as a great victory for proponents of private property rights-- a few sources will be reviewed to provide an indication of the extent redevelopment in Arizona has been affected by the decision. While the result in Bailey, precluding the City from taking the subject property may have been the correct outcome, the test to which the case now subjects any similar case involving redevelopment has made it unnecessarily difficult for political subdivisions of the state to carry out legislated redevelopment goals. The Bailey case only served to convolute the question of "public use" in the context of economic development, rather than create a workable body of law. In addition to providing a historical context and analyzing the effect of new interpretations on redevelopment generally, this paper will critique the Bailey decision in order to resolve the conflict that the decision created: that of the redevelopment goals of the state and municipalities and the authorized use of condemnation to achieve these goals with the judiciary's decision to greatly restrict the use of condemnation for the achievement of redevelopment goals. Arguably this conflict arose from a failure to fully understand the complexities of the use of the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. Unaware of the need to use eminent domain in order to speed along and make possible economic redevelopment, overzealous proponents of property rights have reduced the issue to a narrow view of the state vs. the individual. Hopefully this paper can offer a more moderate and unbiased view of the use of eminent domain in light of the charge of the state and municipalities to facilitate economic growth.
ContributorsStern-Sapad, Zalman Badi (Author) / Birnbaum, Gary (Thesis director) / Braselton, James (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
This short documentary on the Equal Rights Amendment features attorney Dianne Post and State Representative Jennifer Jermaine, and it examines the fight for passage at the federal and state level. This film attempts to answer the following questions: What is the ERA? What is its history? Why do we need it? How do we get it into the Constitution of the United States of America?
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
ContributorsSchroder, Jude Alexander (Author) / Adelman, Madelaine (Thesis director) / Mitchell, Kathryn (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05