Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

The White House ^ | June 23, 2006 | Office of the press secretary

[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.

[sinkspur]

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.

[Southack]

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

That point is covered in Post #19...

[nopardons]

bttt

[jazusamo]

A good first step in righting SCOTUS' wrong.

[Southack]

"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.

[DaveTesla]

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.

[Enterprise]

Bump

[Southack]

c#19

[nicmarlo]

...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.

[RightWhale]

Utah with the coal mines

Was that private property?

[NittanyLion]

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.

[lastchance]

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

[StJacques]

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.

[PistolPaknMama]

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.

[Mr. Brightside]

the real abusers are at the state and local levels!

Exactly.

[JerseyHighlander]

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.

[NRA2BFree]

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!

[Yaelle]

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.

[sinkspur]

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.

[khnyny]

{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).