[MarcusTulliusCicero]

While I applaud the sentiment, it's a sort of toothless order. It relies on the judgement of a bureacrat as to what constitutes public use. It offers no legal protection (Sec. 4d: 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) should said bureacrat violate it.

[DaveTesla]

"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."

This needs to be expanded on as it is the cause of most abuse.

[Southack]

"While I applaud the sentiment, it's a sort of toothless order. It relies on the judgement of a bureacrat as to what constitutes public use. It offers no legal protection (Sec. 4d: 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) should said bureacrat violate it."

That's incorrect. See post #19.

This isn't toothless...it is paving the way for eventually cutting off federal funds for cities that abuse eminent domain.

[Huber]

Whether it is legally toothed or toothless, it is still an example of the President using the bully pulpit to providing some visible leadership on a matter of principle. It would be nice to see more of this!

[Carry_Okie]

While I applaud the sentiment, it's a sort of toothless order.

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.

[CDHart]

So what's the point of writing it at all?

Carolyn