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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-303 next last
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]

To: hedgetrimmer
He just granted himself unconstitutional power. Just great.

No he didn't. As head of the Executive Branch, he can say what federal agencies will spend money on and what they will not spend money on. And, via this EO, they will not spend money on any private takings.

51 posted on 06/23/2006 3:37:36 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

It certainly didn't take long for the loud hollering "It's not good enough" to begin.

Sigh.


52 posted on 06/23/2006 3:37:49 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Andalux Resources had a lease which is a
property right.


53 posted on 06/23/2006 3:38:08 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree

but the real abusers are at the state and local levels!




Bingo! Are they ever!


54 posted on 06/23/2006 3:38:19 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 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.

NM passed one too, but that RAT Governor, Bill Richardson, REFUSED to sign it!! I can't wait until he starts his Presidential run. I will follow him around making sure everyone knows that he WILL take their property away from them. LOL THAT will sink him!!

55 posted on 06/23/2006 3:38:22 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (FIRE ALL CAREER POLITICIANS! IT*S TIME FOR AMERICANS TO GET RID OF THE TRAITORS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
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:

This seems to say exactly nothing.

56 posted on 06/23/2006 3:39:14 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish

My point about taking a break......


57 posted on 06/23/2006 3:39:38 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
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:

This seems to say exactly nothing.

It says that the feds will do a private taking if it is for a project that is "public use." That has always been the case.

58 posted on 06/23/2006 3:42:01 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
Nice illustration. How'd you do that? ; )
59 posted on 06/23/2006 3:42:21 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Williams; Brilliant


PING


60 posted on 06/23/2006 3:44:02 PM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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