Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People
The White House ^ | June 23, 2006 | Office of the press secretary

Posted on 06/23/2006 3:04:01 PM PDT by DaveTesla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 301-303 next last
To: NittanyLion

Well, how about the Feds get out of the business of handing out money period?


161 posted on 06/23/2006 5:24:58 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
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"

Which probably didn't need to be stated because the president doesn't have the executive power to limit the application of Federal laws otherwise he would be violating his oath of office.

162 posted on 06/23/2006 5:25:03 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Czar
Spinning?

Oh, you mean I'm not part of the a-trade-deal-is-the-loss-of-sovereignty crowd?

No, I'm not. I haven't read THE NEW AMERICAN in a very long time, either.

163 posted on 06/23/2006 5:25:47 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

True. But it does act to clarify, in any event.


164 posted on 06/23/2006 5:26:40 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

But all the "lawyers" in the thread call it "toothless!"


165 posted on 06/23/2006 5:28:10 PM PDT by stands2reason (Rivers will run dry and mountains will crumble, but two wrongs will never make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

You are very right about our needing to take action.


166 posted on 06/23/2006 5:32:22 PM PDT by Maeve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

The problem is they are not very savvy politically, much to their detriment. They are absolutely politically retarded for lack of a better word.

For example when Bubba Clinton ran for a second term, I told them about a zillion times DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS IDIOT! Do not do not!!! He is a freggin` sociopath! And I thought THIS time they wouldn`t, especially after the ten zillion scandals... And what happens? They voted for him anyway! AGAIN! Why? My mothers reasoning; "He is nice looking, I like him and I don`t think everything they say about him is true" and my Father: "Your mother told me to vote for him" (which is more proof for Ann Coulters theory that women should not be allowed to vote...They vote on looks and force their husbands to follow)

This is the depth of my parents political interest. This is how Hitler came to power; Germany must have been filled with clones of my parents... "Oh but that Hitler has such a cute mustache" Oh yes, and you think that is bad, you should see my Grandmother who is now 97 years old. Ronald Reagan to her was the devil, she hated his freggin` guts, and Jimmy Carter the greatest President that ever lived "He helped all those poor people in Cuba!" My brother is the same way...Hillary should be President and the US are the only trouble makers on earth.

I`ve come to a theory that there is a political retard gene in my family tree and by the grace of God, somehow I missed it. I thank the Almighty everyday after I talk politics with my family. "There but for the grace of God goes forth the blind yet I can see"


167 posted on 06/23/2006 5:33:00 PM PDT by Screamname (Does your terror group need a cheerleader? Call 1-800-Cindy-Sheehan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
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.

168 posted on 06/23/2006 5:35:29 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
But all the "lawyers" in the thread call it "toothless!"

Toothless?


169 posted on 06/23/2006 5:35:33 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa; All
Ran across the following while on another thread. FYI

Analysis from U.S. News & World Report

170 posted on 06/23/2006 5:39:45 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
It is interesting that almost as many libs as conservatives are annoyed by Kelo and it's implications. As I wasn't really very cognizant of national politics in 1973 I can recall no SOCTUS decision giving me quite the sick, kicked in the gut sensation.
171 posted on 06/23/2006 5:39:48 PM PDT by RedStateRocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Oh, you mean I'm not part of the a-trade-deal-is-the-loss-of-sovereignty crowd?"

No, I mean exactly what I said. By way of further explanation, I would say you are more properly assigned to the party-above-principle Big Tent GOP "Bush is our guy" crowd.

"I haven't read THE NEW AMERICAN in a very long time, either."

Not familiar with it but, considering your disparaging tone, I suppose it's something I should check out for that reason alone.

172 posted on 06/23/2006 5:50:26 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Czar
I would say you are more properly assigned to the party-above-principle Big Tent GOP "Bush is our guy" crowd.

This, from a guy who never met a conspiracy he didn't believe.

173 posted on 06/23/2006 5:51:52 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"This, from a guy who never met a conspiracy he didn't believe."

Ah, there you go again. Assuming facts not in evidence.

Don't blame me for your posting record.

174 posted on 06/23/2006 5:55:44 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Czar

Why are you always so unpleasant?


175 posted on 06/23/2006 5:57:24 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Why are you always so unpleasant?"

Would you believe me if I told you I try not to be?

I might ask you the same question.

176 posted on 06/23/2006 6:00:32 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Czar

I give as I get.


177 posted on 06/23/2006 6:06:44 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: 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!

Well, it would be a much better use of the bully pulpit on a Monday than a Friday night. Unless he can sucker the Dems into taking the bait and launching into protracted howling, most Americans will never hear of this, and still believe that the loss of property rights from the Supreme Court's Kelo decision is still a potential threat to them.

178 posted on 06/23/2006 6:16:57 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"I give as I get."

So do I.

And quite happy to do so.

179 posted on 06/23/2006 6:20:56 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It might be noted that corporations are public.

Nope, 2 very different legal meanings of the term 'public'. A public corporation is still a private entity when it comes to defining 'public use'.

180 posted on 06/23/2006 6:21:15 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 301-303 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson