Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

The White House ^ | June 23, 2006 | Office of the press secretary

[sam_paine]

Cutting off federal funds to cities that abuse eminent domain comes to mind.

It may come to mind, but it's not included in the TEXT of this EO.

[Paperdoll]

Thank you. :o)

[hornetguy]

I remember that. I seem to recall it being pronounced Crevassssess. I was young (ten or eleven)and just about died laughing.

[thoughtomator]

So does this mean an end to forfeiture law? Or is it a select subset of property to which this applies?

[DaveTesla]

"odd thing since they may also be owned"
The corporate vail protects the shareholders personal
property. Unless a share holder commits an illegal act
for personal gain the corporate property is separate from
theirs.

[potlatch]

Thanks nic, interesting read!

[be4everfree]

Thanks for the info, My question is, does Sec 1 supercede Sec 3 ?

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. 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:

i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Will some in this country argue that it is not to the benefit of the general public and there is no military, law enforcement or public safety concern ?

[Screamname]

I tell my parents all the time to move, they just won`t do it. My mother is Scottish so you can understand the stubborn streak, but I get very worried at times that something may happen to them such as an illness and they can`t work, and when that happens the liberal predators of Sue York state will come in and rip them to shreds, take everything they have from them. I keep telling them to consider New Hampshire which has no local taxes I understand, and has similar low property taxes like the amount you said, but they will not even consider it. It drives me NUTS! Sometimes I think they are self destructive.

[jess35]

this is politics, not substance.

And we have a president, not a dictator. An E.O. is the extent of his "legal" options.

[DaveTesla]

"So does this mean an end to forfeiture law?"

No
The fight lives on.
It is an executive order to government employees,
and a good start one year after the absurd USSC ruling.
One of two things need to happen; The states enact laws
prohibit the taking of private
property for absurd things like tax revenue or
the case or similar case is reheard or heard
enforcing the true constitutional meaning of "in the public interest."

[AmericaUnited]

Your parents need to vote with their feet and let those tax hellholes like NY collapse.

[DaveTesla]

The good thing about this order is any one in the ranks of the
Federal Government violating it can be immediately removed from office.
In spite of the wining this is a good start.
Thank you president Bush Sir!

[processing please hold]

I'm putting hope (maybe foolishly) in the new makeup of SCOTUS to start reversing some of the absolutely ridiculous decisions that have come down in the last 30 or 40 years.

I'll never forget Gingsburg referring to 'International Law' over U.S. laws.

I believe this is the case.

http://volokh.com/posts/1142657428.shtml

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.

[Mogollon]

That's nice, but the real abusers are at the state and local levels!

State and local pols should follow suit in republican red state areas.

[DaveTesla]

Agreed.
The president is not making law he is clarifying it and
stating he will enforce the Constitution at least in
regards to the Federal Government.

[Indy Pendance]

I'll bet they can sell their house for a LOT of money and relocate to a nicer place. A decent house here, with all the bells and whistles, a max, with a good size lot (an acre or more) will be around 250k, and that's a retirement kind of house (they'd be top of the line). If they're hooked up to city water and sewer, probably 5000 in taxes. Well and septic, probably 2500 in taxes. Their house is worth a lot considering it's in a really good location. They can set up an escrow and have their taxes paid annually. They just have to let go of the 'memories' and move on. Good luck. We got my parents to relocate from the city, and they love it now. They're in their mid 70's. They're living in a small town, about 500 people, 25 miles from the 'big city' of 75k.

[AzaleaCity5691]

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.

[ladyinred]

Thank you Mr. President.

[nicmarlo]

My question is, does Sec 1 supercede Sec 3 ?

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).

[Czar]

"Our FR pretend-conservatives are even now going into the spin mode."

Just as I said.

And here you are...

...already spinning.