|
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.
|
HOLLYWOOD -- The city cannot take a family's downtown property and give it to a private developer, a judge ruled Thursday, ending a two-year legal battle and potentially jeopardizing a $100 million condominium complex. Broward Circuit Court Judge Ronald J. Rothschild's ruling in favor of the Mach family, which has owned the 2,900-square-foot building on Harrison Street for decades, came as a blow to Mayor Mara Giulianti and city commissioners. The ruling also means developer Charles "Chip" Abele will have to either renegotiate with the Machs or come up with a new design plan for his condos. He said he has already offered the Mach family $1.2 million for the property, which is valued at $800,000. "This just shows that a lot of people unified can stand up to a bully, to a government that they don't think is doing the right thing," said David Mach, whose late father bought the building after immigrating from Hungary and died during the negotiation process with the city. Mach said he and his mother have no intention of selling their building, which houses a beauty salon and other business at the corner of Harrison Street and 19th Avenue. "I just got off the phone with my mother and she was crying," Mach said. "She was too emotional to be here, but she is very happy." The Mach case has dragged on for two years and become a cause for property-rights advocates, particularly in light of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Kelo vs. New London, that said cities can take property from individuals and sell it to private entities. Citing those two cases, the Florida Legislature earlier this year changed Florida law to ensure that private property can be taken only for public use, such as to build highways, schools, railroads or other public projects. Judge Rothschild's ruling was very narrow and followed a three-day trial in April and May. He said testimony showed the city and Abele didn't need the building to complete the project, a must for eminent domain. And he said the city's argument that taking the property would help save some portions of the historic Great Southern Hotel had no legal basis or precedent. As part of an agreement Abele reached with the city two years ago, commissioners agreed to use eminent domain powers on his behalf if he preserved part of the hotel. The final plans would have saved some of the facade but gutted the hotel's interior. Rothschild also found that neither Abele nor the city did anything improper during the eminent domain process, but said they did not have legally sufficient grounds to win in court. There was one consolation for the city: Rothschild rejected arguments by Mach's lawyers that the entire Community Redevelopment Agency, which authorized the taking, was illegal and improperly structured. "We are extremely pleased that the judge ruled that the CRA was proper and that the city dealt with everyone fairly," Giulianti said. "I just don't want to see Chip [Abele] up his offer to the Machs, because it sends a message to property owners that they can demand whatever they want from developers." Abele, who has already spent millions on building plans and assembling the surrounding parcels, said he's not sure what happens next. He'll likely ask the city to appeal the ruling, which they must under terms of the development agreement he reached with commissioners two years ago. Abele will pay the costs. "It's a little bit complicated, and I know the judge was very careful in his ruling, but I'm not sure he was right," Abele said. "If the question is, do we need that property to physically build our project, then the answer is no. "But if you're looking at the whole needs of a community, to make sure that it's safe for pedestrians and foot traffic all around, and that you keep redeveloping the area, then there's no question that we need that property," said Abele, who is also building a $325 million condo and retail complex on the northeast side of Young Circle. With this year's legislative changes, Mach is one of the last cases in Florida pitting private owners against developers backed by elected city officials. Now, without eminent domain powers, developers will have to deal directly with landowners. Abele said he hopes to resume negotiations with the Machs. "I do know that if we build around his place, that 2,900-square-foot building isn't going to be worth anything near what we're offering." John Holland can be reached at jholland@sun-sentinel.com or 954-385-7909. |
And some wonder why the federal government is distrusted.
They no longer merit the public trust.
You're right about the word trust.
IMO, there's way more to why the U.S. Solicitor General purposely ignored, and stayed away from Kelo v. City of New London immanent domain then we're being told. A year later, the recent meaningless EO doesn't mesh with the intent of 04-108, or in fact the U.S. government isn't even mentioned, because they don't practice it. The EO is really misleading!
Appointed U.S. Supreme CourtJusticesjudges, should never have the authority to usurp, or rewrite our Constitution without being pulled on the carpet, or to be taken to task. The Court's role is to be guardians of the Constitution, and to safeguard government intrusion on the public, and instead, not to legislate or redo it by a five man fiat.
Agree completely. Of course, they've been doing it for so long by now they're almost on autopilot.
The various leagues/organizations of municipalities are no doubt enraged and hysterical about this, and so will quite a few big developers. Thanks to our President for protecting our properties against groups (commies, corporates--all) that push for centralized controls and confiscations to "empower" themselves.
don't think it's the president's job to govern at the state and local levels. It's a decree from the bully pulpit. that is a good thing.
You'll constantly hear the courts whine about "judicial independence." It's a code word, for never, ever, question a lawyer, after he's become a judge, and/or his/her court rulings. Especially, the U.S. Supreme Court. A term nowhere to found in the U.S. Constitution or Amendments thereof.
IMO, SCOTUS appointments should be Constitutionally changed to eight year terms. Three judges out and three judges in every presidential term. All appellate judges should be given a four year judicial grand jury report card, for senate reconfirmation. Their whole employment package must be looked at. To much time off and not enough cases being heard. Presently, more than 95% of appellate court cases are being rubber stamped dismissed and not even heard.
Congress must go to work, and get over this letting the judiciary police themselves without oversight. Self policing has led to nothing but more judicial tyranny and abuse. Federal judge discipline should go to a judicial grand jury for recommendations to congress for impeachment or dismissal, instead of the present fox guarding the hen house do nothing system.
EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED - ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IS NOW FOR THE TAKING
If you look at the Executive Order "Protecting the Property Rights of the American People" just issued by the President, strictly from the view of the recent Supreme Court eminent domain decision, it may appear on the surface to be ok.
Executive Order "Protecting the Property Rights of the American People", 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.
Section 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: (i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.
In essence, this Executive Order allows "limiting taking of private property by the Federal Government in situations for which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public"; and "for the purpose of meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies".
Notice it doesn't limit itself to "real property"; it just speaks of "private property". Under common law, property is divided into: real property (immovable property) - interests in land and improvements thereto; and personal property - interests in anything other than real property. Personal property in turn is divided into tangible property (such as cars, clothing, animals) and intangible or abstract property (e.g. financial instruments such as stocks and bonds, etc.), which includes intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks).
The question is, does this one executive order do away with "private property rights", and allow the Federal Government to come in and take your: Car, Firearms, Ammunition, Food Stores, Money, and Precious Metals, any time it declares it necessary "for public use, for the purpose of benefiting the general public; and for the purpose of meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies"?
I am not saying that is the reason for the EO, just trying to see both sides.
All I can do is shake my head. No matter what our president tries to do these morons kick it one way or another.
Well, that's all they need in the state of WA. They're already taking private owned land here........for wetlands. (The land stays in your name and you pay the taxes on it. You just can't touch it. Nobody wants to buy it.) This is the PACIFIC NORTH WET! It's ALL wetlands!
Tossing us stupid conservatives a bone BUMP!
I will fight the Liberal Socialist POSs and their activist judges to the death!
This is a Liberal document, all puff and no action.
Dubyah, ask the congress to enact legislation to protect private property from non public purpose based expropriation, and then give it some legs. Its an excellent election issue!
You're welcome. I would suggest not buying any home located anywhere near the corridor. Besides the fact that the government can condemn adjacent property, I can only imagine the crime rate will substantially increase as illegals are given an even greater opportunity for a "free" and fast ride into the U.S., and out of the U.S., to avoid prosecution (like they do already, but now they will have the "fast lane").
Ping to SA's link to the large map for NASCO corridor.
Also, if you go to the Texas Department of Transportation, they likely will have information about the highways/freeways planned for expansion and those already having improvements made to accommodate for the corridor project.
The main highways that I am aware of right now are I-35 and I-29, going north. But there are other highways which branch off, east-west, from the main north-south artery.
It just says what the gubbamint CAN do, and does little to say what it cannot do.
And, the escape clause at the end means it is not enforceable anyway.
Why waste the paper, Mr. President?
|
Forward – by David Horowitz
There are few issues so important to the life of a nation as the integrity of its borders and the nature of its citizenship. These are issues that define its identity and shape its future. When a nation is at war, moreover, its ability to regulate and control its borders is a security matter of paramount importance.
The following text by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson describes how America’s borders have been under assault for forty years with consequences that are measurable and disturbing. The assault has been led by an open borders lobby that is sophisticated and powerful. Many of its components, moreover, have a history of antagonism to American purposes and a record of active support for America’s enemies. Its funders are multi-billion dollar entities, who are unaccountable and unscrutinized. They have more discretionary incomes at their disposal to influence these issues than is possessed by either political party, or any business group, or even the federal government itself.
As Hawkins and Anderson show, the open borders campaign was already instrumental in damaging the nation’s ability to defend itself before 9/11. Yet not even this terrible event has caused its activists to have second thoughts, or tempered their reckless attacks. Instead, the open borders lobby has expanded its efforts to eliminate America’s border controls to include the active defense of terrorists and terrorist organizations and a continuing assault on the very policies the federal government has adopted to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks.
A Ford Foundation newsletter the authors cite features an interview with Georgetown law professor David Cole, a leading academic figure in the open borders campaign, who has written a book attacking America’s immigration laws and their protections against terrorist groups. In the interview, Cole denounces, “the criminalization of what the government calls material support for terrorist organizations. This is a practice that was introduced … through the immigration law, … It criminalizes any support of any blacklisted terrorist organization without regard to whether one’s support actually had any connection whatsoever to terrorist activity that the group undertakes.”
The Ford Foundation interview with Cole was published with hindsight in September 2003, ten years after the first World Trade Center bombing and two years after the September 11 attack. As Hawkins and Anderson point out, the anti-terrorist law which Professor Cole is denouncing was introduced as legislation and passed during the Clinton Administration in response to the first World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist plots. It was a bi-partisan effort to put a check on terrorist support groups that were using use the liberties afforded by the American legal system to aid and abet terrorist activities. Shortly after the interview with Cole appeared, it was revealed that the Ford Foundation had granted millions of tax-exempt dollars to terrorist support groups and other radical organizations in the Middle East.[1]
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.