Skip to comments.Bush Signs Executive Order Limiting Eminent Domain Powers of Federal Government
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 ...
Already posted here:
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:
So how does this affect people whose homes have already been stolen thru eminent domain?
Wow, you are a tough customer.
"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).
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.
But not all, and state and local governments are the worst offenders.
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.
she speaks the 'struth
What a wonderfully CONSERVATIVE thing to do!!!
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.
Does somebody take Buchanan serious?
Just a simple question. Now I see this is a federal restriction and won't have any effect.
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.
>> 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.
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
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.
Obviously the president has you very depressed.
May I suggest a hearty dose of hemlock?
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.
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.
VERY well said!
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the post and link.
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.
I agree, it's a good thing but doesn't really effect most of us.
They're apparently demanding a Constitutional amendment to abolish eminent domain.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The state where Kelo took place, Connecticut, reacted but still hasn't done anything.
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.
"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.
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.
Go plant some Indian bones on your property.
It will take them years to work their way through that alone...
'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.
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.