Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People
The White House ^ | June 23, 2006 | Office of the press secretary

Posted on 06/23/2006 3:04:01 PM PDT by DaveTesla

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dustin; dustininman; eo; executiveorder; gopgivethratstaketh; inman; keloyearone; privateproperty; propertyrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-303 next last

1 posted on 06/23/2006 3:04:02 PM PDT by DaveTesla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveTesla

That's nice, but the real abusers are at the state and local levels!


3 posted on 06/23/2006 3:07:43 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (FIRE ALL CAREER POLITICIANS! IT*S TIME FOR AMERICANS TO GET RID OF THE TRAITORS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Okie_Eagle
Any Legal analysis available yet?
4 posted on 06/23/2006 3:08:01 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

While I applaud the sentiment, it's a sort of toothless order. It relies on the judgement of a bureacrat as to what constitutes public use. It offers no legal protection (Sec. 4d: 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) should said bureacrat violate it.


5 posted on 06/23/2006 3:10:28 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
"taking of private property by the Federal Government"

Yes it does not include the local and state governments.

How ever if the Liberals gain control of the House or Senate
This may act as a roadblock if expanded.
6 posted on 06/23/2006 3:10:50 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Okie_Eagle

I haven't seen so many hoops since the Hula-Hoop craze in the 50's. An elephant could jump thru 'em.


10 posted on 06/23/2006 3:13:00 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
"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.
"

This needs to be expanded on as it is the cause of most abuse.
11 posted on 06/23/2006 3:13:45 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: NRA2BFree

Yes, it is by and for FedGov.


13 posted on 06/23/2006 3:14:52 PM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

It might be noted that corporations are public.


14 posted on 06/23/2006 3:16:11 PM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

Well, it's better than nothing, but it seems to use a lot of words to not really change the issue.

It misses the central point: is it sufficiently "in the public interest" to increase the tax base? That is what the whole issue revolves around, and this order doesn't really address that directly.


15 posted on 06/23/2006 3:17:34 PM PDT by B Knotts (Newt '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Your input would be appreciated.


16 posted on 06/23/2006 3:17:37 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Okie_Eagle
That sounds fair.

Yeah, but it won't stop the real abusers. The state and local governments!

17 posted on 06/23/2006 3:20:35 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (FIRE ALL CAREER POLITICIANS! IT*S TIME FOR AMERICANS TO GET RID OF THE TRAITORS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree

Nor should it. FedGov could withhold funding for state ED issues, but that's about it.


18 posted on 06/23/2006 3:23:02 PM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

Cutting off federal funds to cities that abuse eminent domain comes to mind.

City ABC takes Wal-Mart's buildings because a new city council doesn't like Wal-Mart, then City ABC loses all federal funds.

Build on this concept. Withhold federal funds for any city that defies federal laws by declaring itself a "free city" or a "safe zone" or that bans the Pledge or that bans officers from enforcing drug laws, etc.

19 posted on 06/23/2006 3:23:11 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
I was hoping for relief from RICO, but then I read:

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

20 posted on 06/23/2006 3:23:29 PM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
Texas has already passed an eminent domain restriction.

But, as you say, local governments and school districts do most of the takings in this country.

21 posted on 06/23/2006 3:23:48 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
"That's nice, but the real abusers are at the state and local levels!"

That point is covered in Post #19...

22 posted on 06/23/2006 3:23:53 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

bttt


23 posted on 06/23/2006 3:24:17 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

A good first step in righting SCOTUS' wrong.


24 posted on 06/23/2006 3:24:47 PM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
"While I applaud the sentiment, it's a sort of toothless order. It relies on the judgement of a bureacrat as to what constitutes public use. It offers no legal protection (Sec. 4d: 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) should said bureacrat violate it."

That's incorrect. See post #19.

This isn't toothless...it is paving the way for eventually cutting off federal funds for cities that abuse eminent domain.

25 posted on 06/23/2006 3:25:12 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
As it applies to the federal government and not the local
government I don't think the tax question is the issue.
The greater issue is in the political realm IE when
President Clinton was taking private property like the
instance in Utah with the coal mines and creating national
parks or wildlife reserves.
The next step would be to hand it over to the U.N.
26 posted on 06/23/2006 3:25:19 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

Bump


27 posted on 06/23/2006 3:25:38 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

c#19


28 posted on 06/23/2006 3:25:41 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; potlatch; Smartass; devolve; Czar; Borax Queen; janetgreen
...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 ....roadway,....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;

Plans for the Canadian, USA, Mexico Corridor (including any governmental confiscation for easements) remains intact.

29 posted on 06/23/2006 3:26:12 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
Utah with the coal mines

Was that private property?

30 posted on 06/23/2006 3:26:42 PM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Withhold federal funds for any city that defies federal laws by declaring itself a "free city" or a "safe zone" or that bans the Pledge or that bans officers from enforcing drug laws, etc.

Or that bans officers from enforcing gun control laws?

Centralized power is a dangerous concept, which is why I imagine most conservatives are, well, conservative. While I applaud this EO, I can't say I agree with the concept of extorting localities via the withholding of federal funds.

31 posted on 06/23/2006 3:27:27 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

I think this only applies at the Federal Level. Now let's hope that State and Local government follow this great lead.


32 posted on 06/23/2006 3:28:07 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
My opinion is that this executive order does nothing except to say "we're for private property." Unless such an order sets out specific restrictions on the IRS and in some way also applies to the handling of imminent domain by local governments (which is a very difficult step to take since states retain most rights of property management) this is politics, not substance.
33 posted on 06/23/2006 3:28:15 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
Crumbs, that's all this is. I don't see anything in here that prohibits government from doing what it already does. "...advancing the economic interest of private parties " has already been defined by SCOTUS and time and again SCOTUS has decided for us that though private parties *might* benefit economically, the greater good will be served.

Speaking of the Constitution, I'm still waiting on an Executive Order regarding the illegals in this country. Instead, we get crumbs.

34 posted on 06/23/2006 3:28:26 PM PDT by PistolPaknMama (Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't! --FReeper airborne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
the real abusers are at the state and local levels!

Exactly.

35 posted on 06/23/2006 3:28:30 PM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

Throw a dog a bone.

Why this, the anti homo marriage amendment, the flag burning amendment, the 10 commandments fight and the war on terror should be enough to get those damn Conservatives to stfu and get back to voting for us.

By gawd yer right Trent.

THIS President hasn't rescinded the worst of Clinton's Executive Orders, even after campaigning on the issue in 1999. No credibility, no level of trust, no support for empty signatory statements.


36 posted on 06/23/2006 3:28:42 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Okie_Eagle
You're right there, and this does nothing to prevent them from abusing their new found eminent domain powers. I have heard of several high profile cases that just seem abhorrent.

I'm not sure if Bush's EO could override the eminent domain ruling handed down from the USSC. Personally, I doubt it, but I'm not a lawyer.

NM Governor Richardson, shot down legislation in NM that voided the eminent domain ruling in NM. THIS, is the man who wants to be President! I don't think so!

37 posted on 06/23/2006 3:29:28 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (FIRE ALL CAREER POLITICIANS! IT*S TIME FOR AMERICANS TO GET RID OF THE TRAITORS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

Wow! This rocks!!! Bush used his power for something FOR AMERICANS!!! I am thrilled. Does this trump that Men in Black decision?? Hope so. America is built on the ability of Americans to have private property and land.


38 posted on 06/23/2006 3:30:41 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PistolPaknMama
I don't see anything in here that prohibits government from doing what it already does. "...advancing the economic interest of private parties " has already been defined by SCOTUS and time and again SCOTUS has decided for us that though private parties *might* benefit economically, the greater good will be served.

This prohibits the feds from any takings for private parties or private interest.

39 posted on 06/23/2006 3:30:56 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Southack

{City ABC takes Wal-Mart's buildings because a new city council doesn't like Wal-Mart, then City ABC loses all federal funds.]

I agree, cutting off Federal funds to local govs who abuse eminent domain is a good idea. That being said, it is usually a local gov taking property from Joe Schmoe and giving it to Walmart, Target, etc. Companies "invest" in the "community" by "donating" to local charities, etc., and develop cozy "relationships" with those people in decision making positions (or donate enough $$ to put people who do their bidding in those positions).


40 posted on 06/23/2006 3:31:45 PM PDT by khnyny (Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

You beat me to saying that. NASCO supercorridor here we come!


41 posted on 06/23/2006 3:31:49 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

Why don't you run for dictator then. I'm sure you can do a much better job and the press will fawn over you and lay roses at your feet.


42 posted on 06/23/2006 3:32:09 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

He just granted himself unconstitutional power. Just great.

Congress better get going and stop this one DEAD.


43 posted on 06/23/2006 3:32:47 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

It's about time. Was the WH being as slow as molasses in January, or what?


44 posted on 06/23/2006 3:33:27 PM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

The writing's on the wall, whether or not people want to pretend the wall doesn't even exist.


45 posted on 06/23/2006 3:33:35 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The big question is weather the Federal government will
enforce the Constitution in respect to the local or state
actions. Generally I don't believe the Federal Government should
interfere in the actions of the state but when it comes to the
Constitution I believe the Federal government has an OBLIGATION
to do so.
This is just such a case.
Unfortunately this order only pertains to the taking by the Federal Government.
46 posted on 06/23/2006 3:33:57 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Plans for the Canadian, USA, Mexico Corridor (including any governmental confiscation for easements) remains intact.

As does expansions for existing interstates.

In Texas, compensation for takings for the Trans-Texas Corridor will be paid by a private corporation.

47 posted on 06/23/2006 3:34:20 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
I'm not sure how this does anything to mitigate what Justice Souter so notoriously supported this past year.

It sounds like he's simply proclaiming the status quo, save for the fact that the status quo will be only monitored.

So what?
48 posted on 06/23/2006 3:34:34 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander
Throw a dog a bone.

You hit the nail on the head, this is nothing more than another halfhearted attempt to appease 'the base'.

A pitiful attempt, I might add.

49 posted on 06/23/2006 3:36:58 PM PDT by CrawDaddyCA (Free Travis McGee!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Compensations isn't what I was addressing; I have no doubt there will be plenty of compensations going on.
50 posted on 06/23/2006 3:37:20 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-303 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson