Already posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654669/posts
and surprisingly (to me), some on the thread seem quite unhappy with Bush on this issue. Another "damned if he does, damned if he don't)moment.
After initiating the thread, I found some interesting and informative links, all of which helped me understand why President Bush took this action:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june05/domain_2-22.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/19/supremecourt/main1729635.shtml
k, i'm not a Constitutional Scholar (though that label doesn't necessarily guarantee one's standing on this board, in any case...) but I fail to see how someone could damn the executive for signing this order?
If it's from the "only the legislature can legislate" perspective, it's a thin argument - imo President Bush's signing this on the anniversary of Souter's Tyranny is significant -
I read this as a message to all branches... to the judicial, a reminder that theirs is not to make law, but to adjudicate; and to the legislature, a curt reminder for them to stop bullshitting and get on with the business of the People.
Bush could discover a homemade cure for cancer and people here would bitch that he's hurting their pharmaceutical stocks and is an enemy to the American business community.
I think this is more politcal than effective. When was the last time the feds took land for private enterprise?
I'm glad he did. It makes sense but again, this has no effect on the local issues.
Going there to read the replies....can't imagine why ANYONE would be unhappy with him for correcting the stupitidy of SCOTUS activists. Except that it's a bit too late to help the people affected in New London.