Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > Supreme Court rules against property owners/Impacts for rapidly-growing municipalities (CIVIL WAR, YOU DIRTY, LOW DOWN ***** BALLS!!!)
| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"The Court Fool" |
| Date: |
23 Jun 2005 12:46:55 PM |
| Object: |
Supreme Court rules against property owners/Impacts for rapidly-growing municipalities (CIVIL WAR, YOU DIRTY, LOW DOWN ***** BALLS!!!) |
Can't wait until the socioeconimic reingineering begins. In Bosnia, we
had "ethnic re-engineering", but there was no legal legitimacy to it
and it was condemned becuase it's implementation methods were
considered unacceptable.
In the US, there is legal legitimacy to this brand of social cleansing,
and its application methods will be more quiet and "legally
legitimized", avoiding at first the racial and ethnic aspects that it
had in Bosnia and elsewhere. Indeed, it is really about class. But the
people most vulnerable to it will be people in urban poverty, who are
mostly people of color. And these will be the people who will most
forcefully resist.
===================================================================
12. (Q) As has been indicated through these channels, money is the root
cause of the general economic unbalance of our country. Will you give
specifically the reasons for this statement and the approach that can
be made toward correction of the money order as operated today.
(A) Fear on the part of those who control or direct the investing of
capital into channels that give the greater outlet of their characters
of outlet.
As to how this may be corrected, - it is only through patience,
persistence, and a RETURN to the trust in God, and NOT in the power or
the might of self. For those who are hungry care not as to the source
of strength or power, until there is the fulfilling of that desired.
Unless there is, then, a more universal oneness of purpose on the part
of all, this will one day bring - here - in America - revolution!
E. Cayce, 3976-24
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:1N5_f8Nd9QAJ:www.svpvril.com/DParticles1.html+cayce+and+3976-24&hl=en
===================================================================
Supreme Court rules against property owners
Impacts for rapidly-growing municipalities
In a closely watched case, petitioners from New London, Conn.
challenged the government's use of eminent domain to take and pay for
private property and use it for private economic development.
Home and business owners' contention that economic development doesn't
qualify as public use "is supported by neither precedent nor logic,"
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices
Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting.
The case's wheels were set in motion in 1998 when pharmaceutical giant
Pfizer Inc. (PFE: news, chart, profile) agreed to build a $270 million
research facility next to the area in dispute. The New London City
Council later adopted a redevelopment plan to transform 90 acres of the
targeted neighborhood.
The City Council then transferred power of eminent domain to a private,
nonprofit group of residents and business owners called the New London
Development Corp., which seeks to build a hotel complex, conference
center, offices and other structures.
Homeowner Susette Kelo and others petitioned the Supreme Court in the
case, arguing that the city has no right to take their property except
to build projects for explicit public use like roads or schools.
Property rights advocates were outraged at the court's decision.
"With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon,
director of the Center for Constitutional Studies, at the Cato
Institute, a Washington think tank. "Any time a government official
thinks someone else can make better use of your property than you're
doing, he can order it condemned and transferred," Pilon said in a
statement.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
