Congress has been in a bind for years over who should be responsible for constructing a new, nuclear-armed bomb.
But as a consequence of a recent Supreme Court ruling, the courts now have a chance to decide the question once and for all.
The answer, as a practical matter, will depend on who the new owner of the bomb is and who the government chooses to partner with to build the bomb.
If it’s the government, the court should be able to impose liability on whoever is responsible.
But that would be the least of our worries.
The bigger issue is who should decide who builds the bomb — and when.
The court has ruled that Congress can’t use eminent domain to buy the right to build a new bomb, so the question should be decided by the owners of nuclear-weapons sites who are the beneficiaries of the federal government’s property rights.
That means the owners can’t be the ones to decide who has the right, or to whom.
The government has a lot of political power in the United States, and the owners could be well aware that they own some of the sites that are being targeted for destruction.
They have the option to sue for their property, but in the long run that might be better for the nuclear weapons industry.
This means the stakes are high for Congress, the nuclear industry, and even the American public.
Congress has the power to take over a site, and in order to do so it would need to decide whether the owner should be given an outright right to buy that property or whether a different owner should decide what the property should be used for.
The Supreme Court ruled that owners of a nuclear weapons site can’t get away with property rights violations like eminent domain if the site has been used for research and development, which is what Congress had in mind when it created the Atomic Energy Act of 1946.
The law requires the government to provide incentives for the construction of nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons facilities, but the owners also have a powerful lobbying group that they can use to pressure lawmakers to approve their deals.
The nuclear industry is well aware of the potential problems of being forced to give up the right for the owners to control their sites.
The industry is already dealing with a number of issues.
Its members have already lost more than $1.6 billion in federal contracts since the early 2000s.
Some of those contracts were tied to the construction or use of new nuclear power stations.
Some nuclear-industry executives are now asking Congress for billions of dollars to pay for infrastructure upgrades to existing nuclear plants.
Congress is also expected to spend millions to help with the construction and operations of a new generation of nuclear reactors that are much more powerful and have longer lifetime than the older reactors that power our current nuclear fleet.
The owners of the site have a vested interest in making sure that they get what they want.
The most recent survey of nuclear operators by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that 60 percent of them think that their site should be owned by the government.
A recent survey conducted by the Atomic Fuel and Transportation Association also found that only 37 percent of nuclear workers surveyed thought their nuclear-plant site should go to the government for development and construction.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the country has nearly 10,000 nuclear-fueled reactors in operation and is set to retire nearly 7,000 by 2025.
Nuclear energy is a key component of the U.N.’s nuclear disarmament effort, and Congress should not be left behind.
If the government decides to acquire a site for a new weapon, it should give the owners the opportunity to decide on how that site should look and function.
The owner of a property should decide how to use it.
If Congress decides that a site should stay in the hands of the government until 2026, it could have the ability to sell the property for a fair market value.
If a buyer decides to buy, it would be up to the buyer to determine how much the property will be worth, how long it should be kept, and whether the government should pay for its upkeep.
If that buyer doesn’t like what it sees, the owner could seek to sell it for a significantly lower price.
A buyer could also opt to lease it for the duration of its life, giving the owner the option of paying off the cost of upkeep and maintaining the site in perpetuity.
If one owner wants to make a profit by selling their property at a lower price, they should be allowed to do that.
If both the owner and the buyer agree, the government would still be able, under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s rules, to use eminent land for the purpose of construction of a weapon, even though the property owner or buyer has no control over the site.
The Nuclear Regulatory Review Commission, the agency that is charged with overseeing the process of approving new nuclear-