eminent domination(7.15.05)

another reason why ak-47 is the tool. and my essays
are not in any kind of chronological order folk

I have been informed that liberty is now just for the wealthy.
Actually, I was always aware of this since the Constitution of this
Republic dictates that landowners are the only folks who can make
political decisions. This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
that private property can be seized to create jobs and taxes. Moreover,
the ruling suggests that the government does not violate the
U.S. Constitution when they seize or demolish homes, churches
and businesses to make room for private developments.
You know things have to be horrific when Clarence Thomas
writes a dissent. Specifically, Justice Thomas indicated that
the court’s actions would make things even worse in
African American communities. He wrote, “Urban renewal
projects have long been associated with the displacement of
blacks,” and also indicated that urban renewal was once
known as “Negro removal.”
Also in dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor noted that
the ruling could have negative outcomes for owners of
homes and other properties. She wrote that “Under the
banner of economic development, all private property is
now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another
private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.”
As usual, the benefactors are going to be individuals like
corporate executives and politicians who maintain
unbalanced influence and supremacy in the political process.
The 5-4 ruling makes it easy for New London, Conn.,
to condemn private houses for new office-and-retail complexes.
I have always felt that the court was inconsistent. This is
certainly visible with this decision. No longer is the little man
considered equal to the big wheels. I guess once upon a time
this was called eminent domain; now, it’s eminent
domination. --torrance stephens