In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause permits a city or state to take private land from one private party and transfer ownership of that land to another private party if doing so furthers economic development. That is, the Supreme Court broadly interpreted the term "public use” in the takings clause to include "public purpose.” Suppose that the federal government wished to prevent such takings by states and municipalities in the future. Discuss what legislation Congress could enact to do so. Discuss the potential basis for such power. In the context of the scenario, discuss how such actions by the federal government would promote or interfere with principles of federalism, and discuss the potential constitutionality of such actions.

answer:

2

explanation:

1+1 = 2

the reason this is so is because of basic addition. we can double check this without using addition if you really want. if you take 1+1=x, subtract 1 from both sides than you get 1 = x - 1. subtract x from both sides and you get 1 - x = -1. subtract 1 from both sides again and you get -x = -2. finally, multiply both sides by -1 to get x = 2. subtraction is still technically addition you say? fine, have it your way. 1 + 1 = x. by definition, adding something to itself is the same thing as multiplying it by 2. this means we can technically rewrite the equation as

1 * 2 = x. now all we have to do is solve it. 1 * 2 = x when simplified results in 2 = x, or x = 2. this shows 1 + 1 = x. you say you want a real answer. you want me to start you from the ground up? well i would, but that would practically just be stealing from what was written on this website: go check it out if you really need to.