|
|
"Mitch_A" <naman@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:GRNue.32747$J12.25375@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
>" The Common Good Before the Individual Good ."
>
>
> These tenants was pulled directly from the Nazi Party in 1920 and was
> predicted to happen in the USA by Frederick Hayak in 1944. This sounds
> eerily similar to what the US Supreme Court ruled today...
>
> Time for the Cons and the Libs to join together to fight the bigger evil.
> They have already divided and now they are beginning to Conquer.
>
>
> Mitch
>
Those who wish that the "Cons and the Libs" should join in some common cause
should first examine what causes the "Cons and Libs" fought for the last
time they came togeather. I assume that folks here remember "McCain
Feingold" H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.", are
aware of its provisions, observed its results in campaign 2004. These and
other such "Bipartisan" actions seem to show that both the "Cons and the
Libs" fight for increased government power and squable with each other only
about which party should wield that power. Both parties are for Kingdom but
argue over who should wear the crown. Individual rights will be protected by
neither.
Five out of nine on our own Supreme Court are appearently in full agreement
with the collectivists attitude that tthe individual person may be siezed,
stripped, cooked and served up as a meal to be eaten by the commons.
Yesterday, 23 June, the Supreme Court decided in "Kelo et al, v. City of New
London et al." that privately owned property may be condemned and siezed by
politicians then handed over to other private interests for the benefit and
enrichment of the other private interest as long as there can be
demonstrated some "public benefit" resulting from the siezure. The
defination of "public benefit" being anything and everything the local
politicians want it to be as the Supreme Court placed no restrictins
whatever on what properties local politicians may sieze, why they may sieze
them or who the politicians may ultimately turn the properties siezed over
to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...000/04-108.html
In effect, true ownership of the land has been transfered from deed holders
to local mayors and city councles for it is THEY and NOT the deed holder who
decides whether or not a property will be bought or sold. A decision that,
thanks to the Supreme Court, may now be made based on some vague promise
from the politicians that the public will "benefit".
Majority:
Stevens, Republican, Nominated by Ford
Souter, Republican, Nominated by Bush 41
Kennedy, Republican, Nominated by Reagan
Breyer, Democrat, Nominated by Clinton
Ginsburg, Democrat, Nominated by Clinton
Dissenting:
Rehnquist, Republican, Nominated by Reagan
Scalia, Republican, Nominated by Reagan
Thomas, Rebublican, Nominated by Bush 41
O'Connor, Republican, Nominated by Reagan
|
|