Skip to comments.Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People
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.
Your parents need to vote with their feet and let those tax hellholes like NY collapse.
I'll never forget Gingsburg referring to 'International Law' over U.S. laws.
I believe this is the case.
If this isn't the one, I'm sure someone here will stear me to the correct one in which she was speaking about.
If President Bush could get just one more appointment seated on the court, I believe we would start to see a real difference or maybe it's just wishful thinking.
Hanging onto hope is the only thing many of us have left.
State and local pols should follow suit in republican red state areas.
Where I live, if you claim a homestead exemption, in order to pay property taxes of 11k, the county must assess your home's value to be well over 2 million dollars, keep in mind, if your home is assessed for taxes at that rate, you could probably sell it for at least 4 mil, if not more. And keep in mind, this is in the city where property taxes are higher.
If you buy a home in the average middle class neighborhood here, and claim a homestead exemption, you're probably going to be paying a property tax in the $800-1600 range, and the higher numbers on that range begin to definitely bracket in the upper middle class.
Thank you Mr. President.
No, not from my understanding how it is written. In layman's terms, Section 3 addresses that question. It specifically states that however some may interpret whatever is written in Section 1, that interpretation cannot be construed to mean that the Federal Government is restricted or prevented from confiscating private lands, "according to law" (meaning, as long as the Feds follow the laws for confiscation, i.e., condemnation or other such methods, the takings are theirs).
Just as I said.
And here you are...
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.
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'.
Why is it that the government always gets an exclusion?
Thank you Congressman Billybob - I trust your interpretation!
You might want to read up on what the Trans Texas Corridor project really is (and not just how some of the anti-toll road groups spin and falsely portray it.) The ROW will be owned by the state and condemned by the state. No route will be taken unless the state approves and deems it in the interests of the state. The private company is only being awarded a construction, operations, and maintenance contract, which can be canceled at any time by TXDOT (subject to a formula for paying back the company's investment in the road that hasn't yet been recouped by toll revenue.) The road is simply an expansion of the existing I-35 corridor, but through rural areas instead of widening I-35 because the former would be cheaper and affect fewer property owners than the latter.
Basically it is just TXDOT contracting out construction, operation, and maintenance of a road to a private firm, while maintaining ownership. They already do that for many aspects of construction, so what's the problem?
The "glass half empty" crowd have noted this doesn't forbid local and state govt from taking property. Last time the President doesn't run local and state governments. So Bush is doing his part. This is good news.
This thread has obviously lost its focus. The basic fact is that the pres has signed an executive order which puts on the books law which is intended to protect private property ownership. It is now up to each of us, through our representatives and senators, to improve this law.
Its a major achievement to have this law, with the ability to modify and improve it. Have at it. You can bet that there are hundreds of smart lawyers reaping the benefits of this law already.
Im only glad to know that Bush actually knows he can do Executive Orders.
Nope, Kelo was in essence about the expansion of 'public use' to include takings strictly for 'economic development', and was that constitutional. The ruling was a narrow one that basically said that it wasn't in theory unconstitutional. But part of a court's opinion is often based on determining the will of the people, as expressed through the legislature, the voice of the people via the ballot box. What this EO does is put the administration on record as stating that 'economic development' alone is not a 'public use'. As an elected office, the President is similarly a voice of the people, though it would provide a stronger foundation if Congress was to pass a similar law expressing its intent on how far 'public use' should be defined.
This is not at all toothless, it is rather another tool in the battle taking place on the legal front, giving judges in future cases more ammo to use if they choose to. And as others have noted, there are other ways in which this EO will curtail takings for economic development. It is a multi-faceted approach.
No you won't. It will be built by private money, maintained by private money, and enhanced by private money.
All you'll pay are the tolls, if you use it.
We are paying by loss of sovereignty. The foreign agents are another degree of separation of the American people from their duly elected representatives.
When a conspiracy theorist runs out of arguments, he always pulls a charged word out of the air.
The charged word on this thread is "sovereignty."
You can hope in one hand and......well you know the rest of the old saying.
Local governments are by far the worst offenders, and the buffoons who run those governments aren't about to do anything that would negatively affect their power to take private property. Until the state governments step in with their own laws (refer to old saying above, IOW never happen) the local yokels will continue to take property in order to increase the tax base and provide themselves with more money to waste on useless pet projects and grandiose monuments to their own self important egos.
There sure are some idiots 'round here.
They must have had a bulk sale somewhere recently.
so what's the problem?The taking of private property.
The private company is only being awarded a construction, operations, and maintenance contract, which can be canceled at any time by TXDOTThis would be the same "private company", at such great risk of being cancelled, finding it somehow beneficial to put up it's own money to have the state take private property ?
People need to fix their state constitutions to prevent eminent domain. Unless their constitutions already do protect them from it, that is.
You don't care about land or possessions, or so you say. So you take the side of the government condemning others. What about protecting those of us that do care about our land and possessions?