Posted on 06/23/2006 3:04:01 PM PDT by DaveTesla
Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People
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.
Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:
(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and
(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.
(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:
(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and
(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).
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;
(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;
c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;
(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;
(e) acquiring abandoned property;
(f) quieting title to real property;
(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;
(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or
(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.
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
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.
(d) 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.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 23, 2006.
It may come to mind, but it's not included in the TEXT of this EO.
Thank you. :o)
I remember that. I seem to recall it being pronounced Crevassssess. I was young (ten or eleven)and just about died laughing.
So does this mean an end to forfeiture law? Or is it a select subset of property to which this applies?
Thanks nic, interesting read!
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.
And we have a president, not a dictator. An E.O. is the extent of his "legal" options.
Your parents need to vote with their feet and let those tax hellholes like NY collapse.
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.
State and local pols should follow suit in republican red state areas.
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.
Thank you Mr. President.
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).
Just as I said.
And here you are...
...already spinning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.