Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

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

[NRA2BFree]

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

[DaveTesla]

Any Legal analysis available yet?

[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]

"taking of private property by the Federal Government"

Yes it does not include the local and state governments.

How ever if the Liberals gain control of the House or Senate
This may act as a roadblock if expanded.

[diogenes ghost]

I haven't seen so many hoops since the Hula-Hoop craze in the 50's. An elephant could jump thru 'em.

[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.

[RightWhale]

Yes, it is by and for FedGov.

[RightWhale]

It might be noted that corporations are public.

[B Knotts]

Well, it's better than nothing, but it seems to use a lot of words to not really change the issue.

It misses the central point: is it sufficiently "in the public interest" to increase the tax base? That is what the whole issue revolves around, and this order doesn't really address that directly.

[DaveTesla]

Your input would be appreciated.

[NRA2BFree]

That sounds fair.

Yeah, but it won't stop the real abusers. The state and local governments!

[RightWhale]

Nor should it. FedGov could withhold funding for state ED issues, but that's about it.

[Southack]

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

City ABC takes Wal-Mart's buildings because a new city council doesn't like Wal-Mart, then City ABC loses all federal funds.

Build on this concept. Withhold federal funds for any city that defies federal laws by declaring itself a "free city" or a "safe zone" or that bans the Pledge or that bans officers from enforcing drug laws, etc.

[the_Watchman]

I was hoping for relief from RICO, but then I read:

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