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

Skip to comments.

Bush Signs Executive Order Limiting Eminent Domain Powers of Federal Government
Fox News ^ | Saturday, June 24, 2006 | Associated Press via Fox News

Posted on 06/24/2006 3:45:58 AM PDT by MNJohnnie

WASHINGTON — President Bush declared Friday that the federal government can only seize private property for a public use such as a hospital or road.

The president signed an executive order in response to a Supreme Court decision granting local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes to make way for private development.

It was the one-year anniversary of the controversial Supreme Court decision in a case involving New London, Conn., homeowners.

The majority opinion from the divided court limited homeowners rights, by saying that local governments could take private property for purely economic development-related projects because the motive was bringing more jobs and tax revenue to the city.

But the court also noted that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit, and many have done so, prohibiting so-called takings for shopping malls or other private projects.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; domain; kelso; legal; propertyrights; taking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
Well it a step in the right direction
1 posted on 06/24/2006 3:46:02 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Already posted here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654669/posts

and surprisingly (to me), some on the thread seem quite unhappy with Bush on this issue. Another "damned if he does, damned if he don't)moment.

After initiating the thread, I found some interesting and informative links, all of which helped me understand why President Bush took this action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june05/domain_2-22.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/19/supremecourt/main1729635.shtml


2 posted on 06/24/2006 3:50:04 AM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

So how does this affect people whose homes have already been stolen thru eminent domain?


3 posted on 06/24/2006 3:50:15 AM PDT by SuzanneC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzanneC

Wow, you are a tough customer.


4 posted on 06/24/2006 3:51:45 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (Sixty percent of all people understand statistics. The other half are clueless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SuzanneC
Probably same way the death penalty being eliminated would effect those already executed.
5 posted on 06/24/2006 3:59:00 AM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

"Cities, though, backed by many liberals see the takings power as an important tool for urban renewal projects crucial to revitalizing cities."

I hadn't thought of 'cities' as particularly socialist in nature until this comment. Verrry interesting. Perhaps cities can join the Main Stream Media as dead men walking and obsolete.

If taking is crucial to the life of a city then let it die. If taking is crucial to the success of a BigBox store then let it fail (see WalMart/Sturgeon Bay controversy).


6 posted on 06/24/2006 4:04:15 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

k, i'm not a Constitutional Scholar (though that label doesn't necessarily guarantee one's standing on this board, in any case...) but I fail to see how someone could damn the executive for signing this order?

If it's from the "only the legislature can legislate" perspective, it's a thin argument - imo President Bush's signing this on the anniversary of Souter's Tyranny is significant -

I read this as a message to all branches... to the judicial, a reminder that theirs is not to make law, but to adjudicate; and to the legislature, a curt reminder for them to stop bullshitting and get on with the business of the People.


7 posted on 06/24/2006 4:06:00 AM PDT by CGVet58 (God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
But the court also noted that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit, and many have done so, prohibiting so-called takings for shopping malls or other private projects.

But not all, and state and local governments are the worst offenders.

8 posted on 06/24/2006 4:07:52 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Those who've decided Bush Is The Enemy will find something to carp about no matter what he does. That's disappointing, because I can't stand those who simply decide someone is Evil and then argue against even the good things he does--it's so much a DUmmie tactic.

Bush could discover a homemade cure for cancer and people here would bitch that he's hurting their pharmaceutical stocks and is an enemy to the American business community.

9 posted on 06/24/2006 4:09:54 AM PDT by Darkwolf377
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

she speaks the 'struth


10 posted on 06/24/2006 4:11:03 AM PDT by Gunny P (Gunny P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

What a wonderfully CONSERVATIVE thing to do!!!

LLS


11 posted on 06/24/2006 4:13:25 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Good for Bush.

Shame on the Republican for not stepping up to the plate and taking care of this very serious problem along time ago.


12 posted on 06/24/2006 4:18:05 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
It is pretty apparent that we have two groups who need Bush to fail. The obvious one is the Democrat/socialists, the less obvious is the Buchanan\Isolationists\Libertarians group. Well maybe three, there is the black helicopter\gold flag fringe folks but no one takes them serious.
13 posted on 06/24/2006 4:20:23 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DB
Opps, that was suppose to be "...Republican Congress..."
14 posted on 06/24/2006 4:20:51 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Bump


15 posted on 06/24/2006 4:21:06 AM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Does somebody take Buchanan serious?


16 posted on 06/24/2006 4:21:49 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty; t1b8zs

Just a simple question. Now I see this is a federal restriction and won't have any effect.


17 posted on 06/24/2006 4:22:28 AM PDT by SuzanneC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
... the less obvious is the Buchanan\Isolationists\Libertarians group. Well maybe three, there is the black helicopter\gold flag fringe folks but no one takes them serious.

You already included them in the second group.

The Democrat party is sliding into the hands of its biggest wackos. If we are to stop ourselves from falling into the hands of our own crazy cousins, we need to check our impulses for following the ravings of the Buchanoids and Savageweiners.

18 posted on 06/24/2006 4:28:17 AM PDT by Darkwolf377
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SuzanneC

>> So how does this affect people whose homes have already been stolen thru eminent domain?

It doesn't help them, at all. It keeps the federal government from doing it.


19 posted on 06/24/2006 4:29:40 AM PDT by quikdrw (Life is tough....it's even tougher if you are stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Don't get too excited.  The EO only applies to the Federal Government...not local and state governments.

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.

Read the whole EO and no mention what-so-ever pertains to any actions other than the federal government.

Now, how many recent eminent domain scandals have you heard lately done by the federal government?  Local and state governments?  That's right!  None by the federal government, all the others were done by the state and local governments.

This is a document that says nothing but leads one to believe that we are all safe from improper seizure but it's false.  This is nothing more than "feel good soup for the soul" in dire political times.

Someone please point out where local and state governments are affected.  Here's the link to the EO.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html

20 posted on 06/24/2006 4:30:00 AM PDT by DH (The government writes no bill that does not line the pockets of special interests.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
Does somebody take Buchanan serious?

His followers are still committed and angry that Bush stole their inheritance from them. "Everything Bush" needs to fail so that the philosophy of isolationism and anti-Israelism can prevail. His followers are patient and waiting like vultures for any sign of death.

We saw them surface a bit on the illegal alien situation. They are the ones that manage to hijack threads about "burnt toast" and weather reports to be about illegals. The border issue is emblematic of the larger isolationism these wacko's want to see here. For them the border issue is a stepping stone toward a larger (myopic) vision.

21 posted on 06/24/2006 4:33:02 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DH
"This is a document that says nothing but leads one to believe that we are all safe from improper seizure but it's false. This is nothing more than "feel good soup for the soul" in dire political times."


Obviously the president has you very depressed.

May I suggest a hearty dose of hemlock?



22 posted on 06/24/2006 4:40:58 AM PDT by G.Mason (I wouldn't wanted to have lived without having disturbed someone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gunny P

Well, that's pretty much the argument the Indians have made about Manhattan. It is reasonable to say "no more." It is not reasonable to try to go back and return all land to its original owners. (1) They may not want it back, or (2) they may have been willing to sell at the time, but would now want the more valuable land returned to them.

Philosophically, I understand the point, but practically, it would be impossible. If people are waiting for that to happen, they will never be happy because it is logistically impossible.


23 posted on 06/24/2006 4:43:23 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (Sixty percent of all people understand statistics. The other half are clueless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Well said.


24 posted on 06/24/2006 4:45:37 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (Sixty percent of all people understand statistics. The other half are clueless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Stretch, the Old Geezer here: Now that I have read the comments, I wish to make my take known to "Ya'al" I was forced to sell ten acres several years ago for about $400,000. My argument was that I purchased the land to build my dream home on and to hold it for my future retirement income, when I got too old to care for it.
I feel that any eminent domain seizure of one's property for any purpose, that person who owned the property, should become a partial owner of any development on that property so as to recieve compensation that would have been his if he had held on to it. In other words, if Wal Mart took my ten acres, there should have been a clause in the contract that would make me receive a portion of future profits from WalMart. In other words, a part owner of that store or other business. Today, that ten acres they took from me would be worth $ two million. without walmart or another development on it. just raw land with my home on it.


25 posted on 06/24/2006 4:57:13 AM PDT by Stretch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: DH
Grow up. Sick of you knee jerk whiners. That was a totally irrelevant post you made. The story itself stated that. You added NOTHING to the conversation here. Bush can only issues orders to the Federal Government. He cannot issue orders to state and local govt. It is a step in the correct direction

Another thing, this would have to later be UNDONE by a EO otherwise it stays in force so Bush added a political step that will force some future President to act, and take the political hit, if they wanted to undo this.

Really tired of this knee jerk "It's was done by Bush so I got to find something to bitch about" mindset of the Perpetual Bitchers. You whole post was completely irreverent and childish.
27 posted on 06/24/2006 4:58:40 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The US Military. We kill foreigners so you don't have too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Obviously the president has you very depressed. May I suggest a hearty dose of hemlock?

VERY well said!

28 posted on 06/24/2006 5:03:11 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The US Military. We kill foreigners so you don't have too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Remember, this is just federal. Not state or local. In some ways I agree with the others. If Bush felt strongly enough about this issue to sign an order why didn't he say anything about Kelo?

I think this is more politcal than effective. When was the last time the feds took land for private enterprise?

I'm glad he did. It makes sense but again, this has no effect on the local issues.

29 posted on 06/24/2006 5:03:20 AM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

One of the links I provided details the states that immediately reacted to the Supreme Court decision. And I think we all agree, this is primarily a local and state issue.

While some castigate Bush, no matter what he does, on this issue, I appreciate the fact Bush doesn't try to dictate to cities and states, what their response should be.


30 posted on 06/24/2006 5:15:50 AM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Well it a step in the right direction.

Not even that. All it does is forbid the federal government (only) from seizing property for the profit of private parties, which it doesn't do anyway. This is another example of the cynical manipulation of his base that lead to Bush's saying he's for gun rights but doing nothing about them.

31 posted on 06/24/2006 5:17:27 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DH

Thanks for the post and link.


32 posted on 06/24/2006 5:19:07 AM PDT by texastoo ("trash the treaties")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Going there to read the replies....can't imagine why ANYONE would be unhappy with him for correcting the stupitidy of SCOTUS activists. Except that it's a bit too late to help the people affected in New London.


33 posted on 06/24/2006 5:21:19 AM PDT by cake_crumb (One presidential visit to Baghdad is worth 1000 pathetic declarations of defeat from the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

I agree, it's a good thing but doesn't really effect most of us.


34 posted on 06/24/2006 5:21:45 AM PDT by cripplecreek (I'm trying to think but nothing happens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CGVet58
"...I fail to see how someone could damn the executive for signing this order?"

They're apparently demanding a Constitutional amendment to abolish eminent domain.

35 posted on 06/24/2006 5:24:26 AM PDT by cake_crumb (One presidential visit to Baghdad is worth 1000 pathetic declarations of defeat from the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

True that this appears not to effect us but there are Fedeal funds available for just about anything. Many states have already put the kabosh on the Supreme Court ruling. This serves as an umbrella for all the states and/or notice for any Federal Funds which might be available for these "private gain" takings.


36 posted on 06/24/2006 5:31:28 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"If Bush felt strongly enough about this issue to sign an order why didn't he say anything about Kelo?"

He can say all he WANTS about Kelo, but he CANNOT DO anything about it! What do you people think this country is, a dictatorship?? Total power over your lives to one man?? Is that what you want? Or is it that so many of you just have no clue how the government of our Republic is set up to work??

Reminds me of the wackjobs on the Katrina threads dissing the president for not sending in the National Guard despite the fact that that idiot Blanco didn't allow it at the time.

BOTH wishes, that the president take complete control of this country right down to the local level and the demand for troops to be sent to invade Louisiana are unconstitutional AND dangerous for reasons that should be obvious.

37 posted on 06/24/2006 5:32:57 AM PDT by cake_crumb (One presidential visit to Baghdad is worth 1000 pathetic declarations of defeat from the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Grut
"All it does is forbid the federal government (only) from seizing property for the profit of private parties, which it doesn't do anyway."

It's more than you hope. It's precedent to counter more Kelo vs. New Londons except on the federal level.

You all who say this means nothing: imaging Bill Clinton, of Waco fame, with the precedent of Kelo vs. New London in his chubby, greedy hands.

As for gun rights, exactly WHAT has the president done to take away your gun rights? Hubby's and my guns are still all here. Did Bush steal your guns? Maybe using eminent domain?

38 posted on 06/24/2006 5:38:14 AM PDT by cake_crumb (One presidential visit to Baghdad is worth 1000 pathetic declarations of defeat from the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DB; All

Some do...


39 posted on 06/24/2006 5:45:24 AM PDT by KevinDavis (http://www.cafepress.com/spacefuture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Stretch
Stretch,

I have the possibility (strong) that my dream home on 24 acres may be taken in an ED case. It is all about a new State Highway here, and I will fight it tooth and nail (if it happens). I am happy that I have two members on the "Endangered Species" list residing in some numbers on my property.

I agree with your assessment.

LLS
40 posted on 06/24/2006 5:49:17 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
He can say all he WANTS about Kelo, but he CANNOT DO anything about it!

At least it would have revealed his position. Also, you apparently think Bush is so impotent as a president that his position would have no effect on policies around the states.

Or is it that so many of you just have no clue how the government of our Republic is set up to work??

I have a really good understanding. I never said anything like what you claimed.

41 posted on 06/24/2006 5:50:44 AM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
One of the links I provided details the states that immediately reacted to the Supreme Court decision. And I think we all agree, this is primarily a local and state issue.

The state where Kelo took place, Connecticut, reacted but still hasn't done anything.

42 posted on 06/24/2006 5:52:11 AM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

This is worth a look.

The federal government is constantly seizing private property for endangered species and stopping people from developing swamps. (See the recent US v Rapanos USSC decision.)

Arguing that the government seizing private property to create government nature preserves - without compensation - is, as far as I'm concerned, a de facto imminent domain action. Using this EO to contest these thefts might be a viable strategy in a court.

And these illegal seizures absolutely affect the land prices of adjacent property owners, "advancing the economic interest of private parties," and giving these owners more value in their property.

As I said, this something worth a look.


43 posted on 06/24/2006 5:55:54 AM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

"Bush could discover a homemade cure for cancer and people here would bitch that he's hurting their pharmaceutical stocks and is an enemy to the American business community."

Funny, yet very true. People just need to lighten up once and awhile, not all is bad, it's ok to relax and feel good every now and then.
Eyore is not a good role model.


44 posted on 06/24/2006 5:59:48 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Never bring a knife to a gun fight, or a Democrat to do serious work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jk4hc4
Won't federal law supersede state law in this situation.

I don't believe an EO is federal law for the purposes of Article 6, Section 2. EOs are only for the regulation of executive agencies. It's very ironic, considering the president's attitude toward border security.

45 posted on 06/24/2006 6:10:33 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Go plant some Indian bones on your property.

It will take them years to work their way through that alone...


46 posted on 06/24/2006 6:16:29 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
'If Bush felt strongly enough about this issue to sign an order why didn't he say anything about Kelo?'
Separation of powers - presidents don't direct the SC to change its mind.

'I think this is more political than effective.'
Apples and Oldsmobiles - it was intended to be political (GWB being a politician and all that...) and its effect is intended to be an influence on other levels of government because the federal government really only influences local pol's via funding and by persuasion.

'When was the last time the feds took land for private enterprise?'
Correct - this only limits the public uses they might otherwise apply, what it DOES do is suggest that ANY exercise of imminent domain should face a stricter test than someone's wanting a department store closer to home.

'I'm glad he did. It makes sense but again, this has no effect on the local issues.'
So am I and I think you are wrong, it just won't have any huge or immediate effect.

47 posted on 06/24/2006 6:36:17 AM PDT by norton (Lord! I'm tired of italics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Yes...one step in the right direction...but this order only limits the federal government. Not state or local governments.
48 posted on 06/24/2006 6:48:02 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ( .) Gone fishin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Or is it that so many of you just have no clue how the government of our Republic is set up to work??

It's this one, believe me.

In trying to explain the concept of 'jurisdiction' to my fellow FReepers, some have even accused me of trying to overthrow the government and replace it with some 'crackpot' theory....just because I told them the Presidential Office of the United States is not an omnipotent position.

:-)

49 posted on 06/24/2006 6:50:19 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am NOT a * legal entity *, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
...gold flag fringe folks...


50 posted on 06/24/2006 6:51:28 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ( .) Gone fishin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 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