Bush issues executive order on private property rights

[RatRacer]

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...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html

[asthmaticeog]

1. This does little to nothing vis the current eminent domain controversey.

It specifies the federal govt., whereas states and municipalities are what are at issue. Whatta hero.

[Fleshdancer]

4. looks that way...smoke and mirrors for the sake of the midterms

on the other hand, why not wait until Monday to do this? Why do it on a news dump day? Odd.

[Tempest]

6. On possible reason for the Friday dump

Is Bush trying to use executive powers to over-rule a Supreme Court decision, which would be a violation of the separation of powers?

It's not the first time he's done this.

[crikkett]

13. Naw, I bet a telco company wants some land.

Maybe in New Orleans. Can SCOTUS overturn an executive order? Not like this one would.

[anotherdrew]

24. yes - it's BS - but what was the Democratic option? oh right, nothing...

what about the Democratic privacy bill that's been pushed these last several years... oh wait, there hasn't been one... why offer up and stand on principle on some piece of essential legislation? That would look like leadership... god forbid the Democratic party look like it's leading... Why the hell didn't we have a fully formed and engaged shadow government? Instead we have no real viable option, the people who would be our leaders should have the time to be bush's shadow president 24/7.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Interesting...

What he's trying to do is overturn by executive order the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which said eminent domain proceedings to take private property for other private development, if it benefits the public, do not violate the constitution. This decision caused a lot of controversy -- and while I don't necessarily agree with it either, this action by Bush is just another example of how he constantly ingores the separation of powers doctrine. The Supremes get to say what's constitutional; Bush doesn't. He's trying to place his "policies" beyond the powers of the Supreme Court. The Supremes are gonna love this -- but then, it was five of those buttholes who made him president in the first place...

[Rose Siding]

3. Didn't the decision imply somehow that legislation was needed?

-My sometimes faulty memory's telling me that they said something about how the law needed to be changed (very different than Junior's royal decree) to prevent abuse.

[Tempest]

5. This will do nothing about the Kelo vs. New London case

Bush's executive order is for the federal government only.

The Kelo case involves a local government.

[jody]

10. OK re Kelo and local government but Kelo would be a precedent for

federal action. Isn't Bush saying the executive branch will not follow Kelo?

[Trillo]

9. I find section 3 c) curious

It appears to grant exclusion consistent with other existing laws that may allow private contractors to take information. What I find curious is the phrase "makes the property available for use by the general public as of right", while the private communication contractors (the phrase reads "common carrier") seem to be selling these services to the general public, not making their communication services: as available, as say, a sidewalk next to the street is available for walking to the public without toll charge.

Is there a specific legal meaning to the phrase "as of right"? It seems odd.

I've been known to misread words at times.

[bananas]

23. Good catch, too bad nobody responded to it

and I include myself when I say "nobody",
I have no clue re: your question:
Is there a specific legal meaning to the phrase "as of right"?
Unfortunately there is only one vote for this thread,
so your question will go unanswered until after it becomes headline news,
possibly twenty or thrity years from now.

[Kablooie]

7. Does the president have the power to make decrees like this?

This sounds like a royal decree, not anything like what is supposed to come from the Presidency.

He's just making up laws. Isn't this supposed to be the domain of Congress?!

What the hell?

[billyoc]

8. Apparently there have been over 1000 of them

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

[sweetheart]

11. That is totally inconsistent with the drugs laws...

that are used to expropriate property from poor people by unscrupulous police agencies
across the land. These liars are artful with their deception, claiming the moral height
to make such a proclimation whilst stealing property willynilly from the iraqis and all
future generations of americans.

[Ravy]

12. But taking private property to build a baseball stadium is ok (n/t)

[struggle4progress]

22. Ya makes ya fortune fust -- then ya finds ya morals.

[bananas]

14. Read it the way George Orwell would

It means the exact opposite of what it seems to mean.
They can give away ("privatize") federal park land to cronies,
and use eminent domain to grab homes for that new NAFTA superhighway,
and a future democratic Congress won't be able to take it back.

[depakid]

19. That' exactly right

It's just another far right pronouncement expressing utter disrespect for for the American people and any sense of propriety.

[oNobodyo]

15. That's a bit of redundant political grandstanding...

Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


There is also no strengthening of rights with the addition of the language of "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" as the government will always claim that it's in the best interest and will benefit the public.

The argument is left open by "not merely for the purpose" i.e. if it can be shown that it's for the benefit of the public `also` then everything is hunky dory, otherwise there are going to be some problems with selling/leasing of public lands for the profit of private individuals.

Step 1. Claim the land for public use with the argument that leasing/selling said land to private interests will benefit the public and "not merely to benefit the economic interests of private parties"

Step 2. Pretend to be doing something important.

Step 3. Rinse and repeat.

[creeksneakers2]

17. Yep. This does nothing

but repeat already well established legal protections.

[jaysunb]

16. what about the people who lived where Ranger Stadium

now sits in Arlinton Tx. ?

Forgot about that, huh ??

[robcon]

18. I wish all 50 states had this language.

This is far more important for states and municipalities than for the federal government.

[depakid]

20. not necessarily

the law is a two edge sword.

For example, a local government in California relied on Kelo like powers to keep a Walmart out.

There are reasons why the moderate justices ruled on this case 5-4.

[flaminbats]

21. another way Democrats can win the next election..

Bush doesn't care if the county or state takes our land to make another Home Depot, only that local Republicans can get away with it! I really hope our party wakes up before November and kicks some ass on this!

[Tellurian]

25. NO, I don't think this is any of the above reasons mentioned..

except for .....setting a precedent.

The Republican House regularly legislates line deletions and additions to the text
of former Executive Orders by Executive Order. Which in effect, changing a word or
two here and there, can totally change the meaning of the Executive Order.

By the looks of this Order, changing a word or two would give unlimited power to
any state, municipal or federal government for the taking of land by eminent domain.

What struck me as strange was the line in:

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."

If you give this a minutes thought, this is how the government got rid of the Indians from their land.
The government legislated them with broken promises off their property onto permanent reservations. And
to this day challenges their rights as a Sovereign Nation.

[Tellurian]

26. Yes, here is the significance:

Just a few threads apart in LBN:

The National Park Service gets involved. A Federal Agency doing the bidding at the request of citizens?
Not unless the opportunity can be used to benefit the advancement of the GOP agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2353301


"America rounded up citizens like cattle and put them behind barbed wire

and armed guards - confiscating their property, denying them their livelihoods,separating families, and taking away their dignity....


http://www.children-of-the-camps.org/history/index.html

Dress it up and rationalize it all you want...it was a crime against Americans and a violation of the Constitution...it was wrong...it was criminal...it was callous...it was cruel

Nothing....absolutely nothing....changes that fact."

[salin]

27. Ironic, given how Bush made his money

through the creation of a 'public private' entity that used eminent domain to force folks to sell their property in order to build a baseball stadium.