Toothless?
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.
Well, how about the Feds get out of the business of handing out money period?
Which probably didn't need to be stated because the president doesn't have the executive power to limit the application of Federal laws otherwise he would be violating his oath of office.
Oh, you mean I'm not part of the a-trade-deal-is-the-loss-of-sovereignty crowd?
No, I'm not. I haven't read THE NEW AMERICAN in a very long time, either.
True. But it does act to clarify, in any event.
But all the "lawyers" in the thread call it "toothless!"
You are very right about our needing to take action.
The problem is they are not very savvy politically, much to their detriment. They are absolutely politically retarded for lack of a better word.
For example when Bubba Clinton ran for a second term, I told them about a zillion times DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS IDIOT! Do not do not!!! He is a freggin` sociopath! And I thought THIS time they wouldn`t, especially after the ten zillion scandals... And what happens? They voted for him anyway! AGAIN! Why? My mothers reasoning; "He is nice looking, I like him and I don`t think everything they say about him is true" and my Father: "Your mother told me to vote for him" (which is more proof for Ann Coulters theory that women should not be allowed to vote...They vote on looks and force their husbands to follow)
This is the depth of my parents political interest. This is how Hitler came to power; Germany must have been filled with clones of my parents... "Oh but that Hitler has such a cute mustache" Oh yes, and you think that is bad, you should see my Grandmother who is now 97 years old. Ronald Reagan to her was the devil, she hated his freggin` guts, and Jimmy Carter the greatest President that ever lived "He helped all those poor people in Cuba!" My brother is the same way...Hillary should be President and the US are the only trouble makers on earth.
I`ve come to a theory that there is a political retard gene in my family tree and by the grace of God, somehow I missed it. I thank the Almighty everyday after I talk politics with my family. "There but for the grace of God goes forth the blind yet I can see"
Pure pabulum indeed. As if "forts, dockyards, arsenals, and other needful buildings," included parks telecom rights of way, or non-governmental uses (The Nature Conservancy anybody?), but then, we know what GWB thinks of his oath of office.
Toothless?
No, I mean exactly what I said. By way of further explanation, I would say you are more properly assigned to the party-above-principle Big Tent GOP "Bush is our guy" crowd.
"I haven't read THE NEW AMERICAN in a very long time, either."
Not familiar with it but, considering your disparaging tone, I suppose it's something I should check out for that reason alone.
This, from a guy who never met a conspiracy he didn't believe.
Ah, there you go again. Assuming facts not in evidence.
Don't blame me for your posting record.
Why are you always so unpleasant?
Would you believe me if I told you I try not to be?
I might ask you the same question.
I give as I get.
Well, it would be a much better use of the bully pulpit on a Monday than a Friday night. Unless he can sucker the Dems into taking the bait and launching into protracted howling, most Americans will never hear of this, and still believe that the loss of property rights from the Supreme Court's Kelo decision is still a potential threat to them.
So do I.
And quite happy to do so.
Nope, 2 very different legal meanings of the term 'public'. A public corporation is still a private entity when it comes to defining 'public use'.
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.