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 1-2021-4041-6061 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]


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