Barron V. The Mayor And City Of Baltimore Essay

Yang, Lee
PS 13
TTh
Citation: Barron v. The Mayor and City of Baltimore (1866)
Question before the Court: Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property’s owner?
Holding: No
Opinions:
When the Constitution was in the process of being ratified, the Anti-Federalist party rejected to be a part of the new nation because the Anti-Federalists were fearful that the Constitution would permit too powers to the Federal government. In order to pacify the Anti-Federalists party, James Madison then proposed that he will include amendments that would suppress the powers of the federal government and secure the people from the Federal government after the Anti-Federalist party sign to ratify the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution was ratified in 1791 and those amendments promised by Madison became known as the Bill of Rights.

Barron claimed that he has been denied his Fifth Amendment rights when Baltimore did not justly compensate him when they used his property. Mr. Barron took Baltimore to court and won his case and was rewarded $4500 for damages, but his case was then overturn in appellate courts. Mr. Barron then took his case to the highest law in the land. However, Mr. Barron’s case was dismissed by Chief Justice Marshall for several reasons. First and foremost, Chief of Justice John Marshall clearly explains that the Bill of Rights were created with the intention of limiting the Federal government and protecting the people. Consequently, the Fifth Amendment is solely for the restriction of powers towards the Federal government instead of the States. Therefore, Mr. Barron’s use of the Fifth Amendment is invalid because the Fifth Amendment gave the people the right to be paid fairly if their property is taken or use by the federal government, not the