The Relevancy the Kelo v. The of New London Case A case involves two opposing parties and it is considered legal it is resolved by a court or a legal process. Just as Justice Chase wrote, the resolution should not be contrary to the law otherwise it qualifies not to be called a rightful exercise. The activist judges figured that some of the actions by the courts of law were not right and they came in as a voice for the weak and oppressed in the society. They state that a law that takes property from one private owner and gives it to another should not be entrusted with such powers. They continue showing how the court today has been carrying out their deals with limitations by the government to a state of abandoning what rightfully should be done. They say that in this era of economic development private property is now in danger of being transferred to another private owner who according to them will put it into a more productive use. These activists reason and put forward that these actions removes the distinction between private and public property and therefore they dissent. In their article narrating why they dissented, they give us an example of the events that went forth in New London. Petitioners were residents or investors owning homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. They were born and lived there all their lives and this was the place they had always called home. Suddenly the Pfizer Inc. realizes a business opportunity near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and months later the New London city council grants the New London Development Corporation(NLDC) approval to prepare for the development plan named. Being a private and nonprofit corporation, with a mission of assisting the city council in economic development, NLDC having the mandate grasped the idea of the Pfizer to create jobs, increase tax among other benefits. A question arises, were the effects the development was going to cause on the residents considered? It is not stated in the article that an Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) was carried out to indicate the positive and negative effects the Pfizer will have on the people and the environment. This indicates a pure violation of rights and showcasing why the petitioners had to file the case so as to protect their property. They held that the NLDC had no powers to condemn their properties as stated in the Fifth Amendment. They claimed that the NLDC had approved a development plan on their property which was not a public one. According to the law the government cannot take their property for private use of other owners just because the upcoming owner would make the property more productive. This can be absurd particularly when the benefits of the development are not guaranteed (O’Connor,J. Susette Kelo Petitioners vs City of New London). The Fifth Amendment states that a private property shall not be made public without compensation. For a property to be taken from a private owner, it should be purposed for public use after a just compensation is made. These two limitations according were security to the property which Alexander Hamilton described as one of the ‘greats objects of government.’ This provided fair use of power as well as providing safeguards most especially to those who could not defend themselves.The activists had the urge to express, though here via the petitioners who felt that the judgment was not substantial and that their rights were being violated. This appeared misappropriate hence the charge for adverse impacts. They are a people who know what is right and when and where things are going wrong. They stand for the weak in society to make their pleas known. They work with the notion that everyone is free to express their views. Through them the law was amended as it is stated that that the courts today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It is evident that their involvement in the case brought about good changes. Works CitedCornel University Law School. KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005). 2005. 3 May 2012 .O’Connor,J. Susette Kelo Petitioners vs City of New London. No. 04–108. Supreme Court of the United States . 23 June 2005.