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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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