Property Right Thoughts and Eminent Domain for Private Benefits in the Early Years of Foundation and 19th Century of the United States

김용창

Space and Environment

P-ISSN1225-6706
E-ISSN2733-4295
KCI

Home

ISSN : 1225-6706

Article Contents

e-Submission

Vol.22 No.3

Citation Share

Property Right Thoughts and Eminent Domain for Private Benefits in the Early Years of Foundation and 19th Century of the United States

Space and Environment / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295

2012, v.22 no.3, pp.67-100

(2012). Property Right Thoughts and Eminent Domain for Private Benefits in the Early Years of Foundation and 19th Century of the United States. Space and Environment, 22(3), 67-100.

copy

Abstract

Today the US give rise to many social problems because of increase of eminent domain for private benefits and expansion of public use concept in spite of strong ideology about protection of private property. This study traces origin of this conflicts back to what was as a embryo in the private property thoughts and cases of eminent domain in the early years of US foundation and Independent Revolution. The founders of the US including Jefferson,Adams and Madison based on Locke’s thoughts established liberal thoughts that treat private property thoughts as fundamental ideology, and they also proceeded efforts to protect interests of the social disadvantages. But increase of eminent domain according to industrialization and utilities necessity in the national development process conflicts with the private property thoughts. Especially, era of Mill Acts and issues of excess condemnation show the embryo forms of public-private takings which are core issues in today urban regeneration. The US government early established eminent domain system as a sovereignty and judicial deference approach with the separation of powers,but historical development proves that eminent domain systems turn into public-private takings. This paper interpret these changes as specific processes deepening spatial domination by capital based on judicial powers.

keywords: 재산권, 사적 이익을 위한 수용, 공용수용, 제분소법, 미국 건국, property right, public-private takings, eminent domain, Mill Acts, foundation of the US

Reference

김남두 엮음. 1993. 재산권 사상의 흐름 . 천지.

김용균. 1994. ｢미국연방 헌법과 헌법판례 개관｣. ≪헌법논총≫, 제5집, 5∼100.

김용창. 2012. ｢미국 도시재생사업과 사유재산권 보호의 차별: 법제지리학의 관점｣. ≪대한지리학회지≫, 제47권 제2호, 245∼267.

김희강. 2006. ｢미국 독립선언문의 사상적 기원과 제퍼슨 공화주의｣. ≪국제정치논총≫, 제46집 2호, 121∼144.

박성우. 2010. 공공선의 정치와 여론정치의 대결 혹은 수렴: 매디슨 대 해밀턴 논쟁을 중심으로 . 한국의회발전연구회.

박종보. 2007. ｢미국헌법이 한국헌법에 미친 영향: 적법절차와 평등보호 조항을 중심으로. ≪경제연구≫, 제24집 제2호, 59∼85.

알렉산더 해밀턴·제임스 매디슨·존 제이. 2009. 페더랄리스트 페이퍼 . 김동영 역. 한울아카데미(Hamilton, A., Madison, J., Jay, J., Pole, J. R. 2005. The Federalist.Hackett Pub Co Inc.).

유희일. 1983. ｢공용수용과 재산권침해: 미국의 판례를 중심으로｣. ≪월간법제≫,1983년 1월호, 법제처, 49∼53.

이병규. 2010. ｢토마스 제퍼슨의 헌법사상｣. 동아대학교 박사학위논문.

10.

장민선. 2009. ｢미국 헌법상 재산권 수용에 관한 연구｣. 이화여자대학교 박사학위논문.

11.

정하명. 2010. ｢사인수용에 대한 미국연방정부와 주정부의 법적 대응｣. ≪공법학연구≫, 제11권 제4호, 401∼421.

12.

조지형. 2008. ｢실체적 적법절차와 ‘반개혁’의 정치: 로크너 사건을 중심으로｣. ≪미국사연구≫, 제27집, 37∼77.

13.

Adams, J. 1787. “Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States.” in P. B. Kurland and R. Lerner(eds.). 1986. The Founders’ Constitution. University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

14.

Asper, L. J. 2007. “The Fair Market Value Method of Property Valuation in Eminent Domain: ‘Just Compensation’ or Just Barely Compensating?” South Carolina Law Review, 58(3), 489∼508.

15.

Bassani, L. M. 2004. “Life, Liberty, and ……: Jefferson on Property Rights.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 18(1), 31∼87.

16.

Beard, C. A. 1913. An Economic Interpretation of Constitution of the United States. The Free Press.

17.

Bird, R. C. 2010. “Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 33(1), 239∼281.

18.

Block, 2009. “Expropriation and the Public Use Clause: The Legislature’s Eminent Domain.” Real Estate Newsletter, http://www.sdma.com.

19.

Claeys, E. R. 2009. “Virtue and Rights in American Property Law.” Cornell Law Review, 94(4), 889∼947.

20.

Coffman, M. S. 2002. “Why Property Rights Matter: How Government Regulations Threaten America.” American Land Foundation, 1∼32.

21.

Cohen, C. E. 2008. “The Abstruse Science: Kelo, Lochner, and Representation Reinforcement in the Public Use Debate.” Duquesne Law Review, 46(3), 375∼419.

22.

Cohen, M. R. 1927. “Property and Sovereignty.” Cornell Law Review(Cornell Law Quarterly), 13(1), 8～30(김남두 엮음. 1993. ｢재산권 주권｣. ≪재산권 사상의 흐름≫, 천지, 242～273).

23.

Columbia Law Review. 1946. “Note: The Constitutionality of Excess Condemnation.” Columbia Law Review, 46(1), 108∼117.

24.

Corr, A. 1999, “Philosophy to Squat By: The New Challenge to Property.” in No trespassing!: Squatting, Rent Strikes, and Land Struggles Worldwide, South End Press, 51∼76 (권범철 역. ｢스쾃의 철학, 소유권에 대한 새로운 도전｣. ≪점거 매뉴얼북 Art of Squat: 자율적 예술공동체를 위한 실천 지침서≫, 오아시스프로젝트, 22～ 39).

25.

Coughlin, M. J. 2005. “Absolute Deference Leads to Unconstitutional Governance: The Need for a New Public Use Rule.” Catholic University Law Review, 54(3), 1001∼1038.

26.

Cramer, B. D. 2004. “Eminent Domain for Private Development; An Irrational Basis for the Erosion of Property Rights.” Case Western Reserve Law Review, 55(2), 409∼441.

27.

Gold, D. M. 2007. “Eminent Domain and Economic Development: The Mill Acts and the Origins of Laissez-faire Constitutionalism.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 21(2),101∼122.

28.

Hart, F. 1927. “Excess Condemnation a Solution of Some Problems of Urban Life.” Marquette Law Review, 11(4/5), 222∼234.

29.

Hopperton, R. J. 1997. “Standards of Judicial Review in Supreme Court Land Use Opinions: A Taxonomy, an Analytical Framework, and a Synthesis.” Journal of Urban And Contemporary Law, 51(1), 1∼188.

30.

Jones, S. J. 2000. “Trumping Eminent Domain Law: An Argument for Strict Scrutiny Analysis Under the Public Use Requirement of the Fifth Amendment.” Syracuse Law Review, 50(1), 285∼314.

31.

Kelly, D. B. 2009. “Pretextual Takings: Private Developers, Local Governments, and Impermissible Favoritism.” Supreme Court Economic Review, 17(1), 173∼235.

32.

Kerekes, C. B. 2011. “Government Takings: Determinants of Eminent Domain.” American Law and Economics Review, 13(1), 201∼219.

33.

Kmiec, D. W. 1991. “The Coherence of the Natural Law of Property.” Valparaiso University Law Review, 26(1), 367∼384.

34.

Kotlyarevskaya, O. V. 2006. “Public Use Requirement in Eminent Domain Cases Based on Slum Clearance, Elimination of Urban Blight, and Economic Development.” Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 5(2), 197∼231.

35.

Lazzarotti, J. L. 1999. “Public Use or Public Abuse.” UMKC(University of Missouri-Kansas City) Law Review, 68(1), 49∼76.

36.

Madison, J. 1787. “Federalist, no. 10.” in P. B. Kurland and R. Lerner(eds.). 1986. The Founders’ Constitution. University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

37.

Madison, J. 1792. “Property.” in P. B. Kurland and R. Lerner(eds.). 1986. The Founders’ Constitution. University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

38.

Meidinger, E. E. 1980. “The ‘Public Uses’ of Eminent Domain: History and Policy.” Environmental Law, 11(1), 1∼66.

39.

Merrill, T. W. 1992. “Judicial Deference to Executive Precedent.” The Yale Law Journal, 101(5), 969∼1041.

40.

Merill, T. W. 2005. “The Goods, the Bads, and the Ugly.” Legal Affairs. January/ February. http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/

41.

Oswald, L. J. 2012. “The Role of Deference in Judicial Review of Public Use Determinations.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 39(2), 243∼281.

42.

Powell, J. 1996. “John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, 46(8), 577∼583.

43.

Radin, M. J. 1982. “Property and Personhood.” Stanford Law Review, 34(5), 957∼1016.

44.

Singer, J. W., 2009. “Democratic Estates: Property Law in a Free and Democratic Society.” Cornell Law Review, 94(4), 1009∼1062.

45.

Steiner, J. B. 1938. “Excess Condemnation.” Missouri Law Review, 3(1), 1∼26.

46.

Treanor, W. M. 1985. “The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” The Yale Law Journal, 94(3), 694∼716.

47.

Treanor, W. M. 1995. “The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process.” Columbia Law Review, 95(4), 782∼887.

48.

Weaver, R. L. 1984. “Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Regulations: An Overview.”University of Cincinnati Law Review, 53(3), 681∼730.

49.

Zuckert, M., 2000, “Natural Rights in the American Revolution: The American Amalgam.”in J. N. Wasserstrom, L. Hunt, and M. B. Young(eds.). Human Rights and Revolutions, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 59∼76.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.22 No.3

Property Right Thoughts and Eminent Domain for Private Benefits in the Early Years of Foundation and 19th Century of the United States

Abstract

Reference

Space and Environment