Our Government Overlords By The US Supreme Court Case Analysis
In an article by the U.S. News called “Our Government Overlords,” Antony Davies, an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University in Pittsburg, and James R. Harrigan, the CEO of FreedomTrust, argue that the government is exploiting the power of eminent domain, a clause that allows the government to take land if it’s going to better the entire community. They’re taking advantage of this clause by misleading the people that they’re property will be used to better the entire community, which in reality the government is actually giving them to corporations. As a result, the court case Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut and an incident with a Dallas Councilwoman served as an eye-opener to what the government is really doing to Americans
…show more content…
Davies and Harrigan aim their argument in a way to persuade Americans that the government is taking their property and not doing the job this political system was created to do. The ultimate purpose behind this argument is to urge American citizens to fight the eminent domain clause due to its exploitive powers. Davies and Harrigan propose this position to the American people in context in a reaction from what a Dallas Councilwoman said about the eminent domain clause. While doing that, the speakers also referred back to the 2005 Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London, in order to reignite the controversy that had taken place in 2005. This helped them support their position by giving the people something to reflect over causing a negative nostalgic effect, which gave them an audience to adopt their …show more content…
The definition topoi, is an important invention because it used to educate the reader what eminent domain means. The principle states that the “government has the right to confiscate property provided that it uses the property for the common good, and that it compensates the owner for the fair market value of the property.” This helps style the article by giving clarification to readers that this editorial is about the policy and it also serves as a reference to compare reality with theory. Next, Davies and Harrigan use the definition to strengthen their argument by incorporating it into the comparison and quality topoi. The use of eminent domain is used to show that this principle is causing more problems than benefits. Case in point, they express that the properties the government confiscates are “most often undervalued.” Then comparing it to civil asset forfeiture laws which states that the national government “confiscate[s] more property than is stolen in robberies.” This leaves Americans with a bad taste in their mouth causing them to challenge this policy more and more. This establishes a negative resistance for eminent domain, or that eminent domain is of bad quality, by persuading the readers that they’re being robbed or taken advantage of, which in turn strengthens and develops Davies and
Davies and Harrigan aim their argument in a way to persuade Americans that the government is taking their property and not doing the job this political system was created to do. The ultimate purpose behind this argument is to urge American citizens to fight the eminent domain clause due to its exploitive powers. Davies and Harrigan propose this position to the American people in context in a reaction from what a Dallas Councilwoman said about the eminent domain clause. While doing that, the speakers also referred back to the 2005 Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London, in order to reignite the controversy that had taken place in 2005. This helped them support their position by giving the people something to reflect over causing a negative nostalgic effect, which gave them an audience to adopt their …show more content…
The definition topoi, is an important invention because it used to educate the reader what eminent domain means. The principle states that the “government has the right to confiscate property provided that it uses the property for the common good, and that it compensates the owner for the fair market value of the property.” This helps style the article by giving clarification to readers that this editorial is about the policy and it also serves as a reference to compare reality with theory. Next, Davies and Harrigan use the definition to strengthen their argument by incorporating it into the comparison and quality topoi. The use of eminent domain is used to show that this principle is causing more problems than benefits. Case in point, they express that the properties the government confiscates are “most often undervalued.” Then comparing it to civil asset forfeiture laws which states that the national government “confiscate[s] more property than is stolen in robberies.” This leaves Americans with a bad taste in their mouth causing them to challenge this policy more and more. This establishes a negative resistance for eminent domain, or that eminent domain is of bad quality, by persuading the readers that they’re being robbed or taken advantage of, which in turn strengthens and develops Davies and