Protecting the Rights of the American People

[Gravitymaster 0]

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People




By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 23, 2006.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure right now if this prevents the States from acting on the dunderheaded decision by the SCOTUS, but at least this keeps the Feds from trampling on peoples property rights.

[akarunway 1]

More smoke and mirrors

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

More smoke and mirrors

Do you see Presedent Bush's actions here in any positive light whatsoever?

. . =(_8^(1)

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

More smoke and mirrors

Do you see Presedent Bush's actions here in any positive light whatsoever?

Actually, yes I do as far as Eminent Domain is concerned. I still just can't bring myself to trust the bastard. Ulterior Motives and all that secrecy shit. Sorry------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edit to add. I think he's pulling all this last hr. shit because his and the GOP's popularity are at the low point. I honestly think he doesn't care about the average Joe.> ME

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[miked10270 0]

I read this as putting a stop to the "Eminent Domain" scandals which have plagued America... While still allowing for enforced property sale for the common good.

After all, not even the worst Communist digtatorship ever confiscated property from an individual or private entity with the intention of giving it to another private entity!

In that case, it is something which badly needed to be done, and more power to POTUS for doing the right thing... To prohibit theft under the guise of law.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[kallend 2,150]

I wasn't aware that the Feds were responsible for the abuses in the first place. How does this prevent a state or city from doing whatever they wish?

I can promise not to beat my wife, but since I'm unmarried it would be an empty promise.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

Doesn't Bush customarily issue parallel 'signing statements' which exempt himself?

I assume his unwritten, unlimited, undeclared war powers nullify this pretty-sounding press release -- as always.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[warpedskydiver 0]

Were you in favor of the abuses perpetuated through eminent domain?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Were you in favor of the abuses perpetuated through eminent domain?

No, just against anything that Bush does, apparently,....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

"Doesn't Bush customarily issue parallel 'signing statements' which exempt himself?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Beat me to it-----------------------------------------------

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

"Doesn't Bush customarily issue parallel 'signing statements' which exempt himself?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Beat me to it-----------------------------------------------

Please post the parallel order.

This is just a statement of policy and a reaffirmation that the Feds will not do this. Since many states, 44 total iirc, have passed laws preventing this from happening, I take some comfort in knowing the Feds also have no intentions of seizing property simply to increase tax revenues. I also appreciate the fact that Bush is saying this ruling by the Libs on the SCOTUS is wrong.

Emminent Domain for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues is a greater real threat to our civil liberties than anything contained in the Patriot Act. Those Justices on the SCOTUS that saw this as constitutional, ought to be ashamed of themselves and should have resigned by now.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Emminent Domain for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues is a greater real threat to our civil liberties than anything contained in the Patriot Act. Those Justices on the SCOTUS that saw this as constitutional, ought to be ashamed of themselves and should have resigned by now.

Agreed.

And what's even worse, there is no certainty tax revenues will actually increase. This is just a way for local politicians to steal and get rich.

Guns, and lots of them. That's whats needed here.

We are all engines of karma

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Please post the parallel order.

I'd love to but as I understand it they're classified -- to prevent embarassment, er, I mean To Protect National Security. But we've heard enough about them to be confident it exists.

Quote

This is just a statement of policy and a reaffirmation that the Feds will not do this.

Except when the administration authorizes themselves to do it.

I can see why you worship these people. You admire that they've achieved the power to crush anyone, anywhere -- and you think you're safe from them.

You might or might not be right... but you'd better hope they stay in power 'cause the new definition of "in power" will make you one tempting target if Bush ever leaves office.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Please post the parallel order.

Quote

I'd love to but as I understand it they're classified -- to prevent embarassment, er, I mean To Protect National Security. But we've heard enough about them to be confident it exists.

Gotcha. You don't know whether it exists or not, but them sumbitch's probably have something sneaky planned.

Quote

This is just a statement of policy and a reaffirmation that the Feds will not do this.

Quote

Except when the administration authorizes themselves to do it.

Which they never have.

Quote

I can see why you worship these people. You admire that they've achieved the power to crush anyone, anywhere -- and you think you're safe from them.

I have more fear of Liberals on the SCOTUS. They have actually done something to infringe on my rights.

Quote

You might or might not be right... but you'd better hope they stay in power 'cause the new definition of "in power" will make you one tempting target if Bush ever leaves office.

I doubt I'll lose any sleep over it, but thanks for your concern anyway.

• Quote

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

This is just a statement of policy and a reaffirmation that the Feds will not do this.

Except when the administration authorizes themselves to do it.

Well, it does out line specific exclusions right in the EO:

Quote

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

Tada....

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

"Doesn't Bush customarily issue parallel 'signing statements' which exempt himself?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Beat me to it-----------------------------------------------

Please post the parallel order.

This is just a statement of policy and a reaffirmation that the Feds will not do this. Since many states, 44 total iirc, have passed laws preventing this from happening, I take some comfort in knowing the Feds also have no intentions of seizing property simply to increase tax revenues. I also appreciate the fact that Bush is saying this ruling by the Libs on the SCOTUS is wrong.

Emminent Domain for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues is a greater real threat to our civil liberties than anything contained in the Patriot Act. Those Justices on the SCOTUS that saw this as constitutional, ought to be ashamed of themselves and should have resigned by now.

"Please post the parallel order" >I haven't seen it yet. It's prolly secrect under the patriot act or something to that effect. When it shows him in a good light I'm sure someone(rove maybe) will LEAK it

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I'd love to but as I understand it they're classified -- to prevent embarassment, er, I mean To Protect National Security. But we've heard enough about them to be confident it exists.

Quote

I call bullshit on this one, and therefore either you come up with the proof, or admit it was bullshit.


If you do either I would be suprised as I predict you will sidestep this one.

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is just a statement of policy and a reaffirmation that the Feds will not do this.

Except when the administration authorizes themselves to do it.

Well, it does out line specific exclusions right in the EO:

Quote

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

Tada....

Yup...like the couple million acres in Utah that Clinton EO'ed into a park, among others... incidentally cutting off access to a couple billion tons of the cleanest burning coal in the continent... so much for the "Environmental President", huh?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706