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 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301-303 next last
1
posted on
06/23/2006 3:04:02 PM PDT
by
DaveTesla
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: DaveTesla
That's nice, but the real abusers are at the state and local levels!
3
posted on
06/23/2006 3:07:43 PM PDT
by
NRA2BFree
(FIRE ALL CAREER POLITICIANS! IT*S TIME FOR AMERICANS TO GET RID OF THE TRAITORS!!)
To: Okie_Eagle
Any Legal analysis available yet?
4
posted on
06/23/2006 3:08:01 PM PDT
by
DaveTesla
(You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
To: DaveTesla
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.
To: NRA2BFree
"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.
6
posted on
06/23/2006 3:10:50 PM PDT
by
DaveTesla
(You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: Okie_Eagle
I haven't seen so many hoops since the Hula-Hoop craze in the 50's. An elephant could jump thru 'em.
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
"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.
11
posted on
06/23/2006 3:13:45 PM PDT
by
DaveTesla
(You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: NRA2BFree
Yes, it is by and for FedGov.
13
posted on
06/23/2006 3:14:52 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Off touch and out of base)
To: DaveTesla
It might be noted that corporations are public.
14
posted on
06/23/2006 3:16:11 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Off touch and out of base)
To: DaveTesla
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.
15
posted on
06/23/2006 3:17:34 PM PDT
by
B Knotts
(Newt '08!)
To: Congressman Billybob
Your input would be appreciated.
16
posted on
06/23/2006 3:17:37 PM PDT
by
DaveTesla
(You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
To: Okie_Eagle
That sounds fair.Yeah, but it won't stop the real abusers. The state and local governments!
17
posted on
06/23/2006 3:20:35 PM PDT
by
NRA2BFree
(FIRE ALL CAREER POLITICIANS! IT*S TIME FOR AMERICANS TO GET RID OF THE TRAITORS!!)
To: NRA2BFree
Nor should it. FedGov could withhold funding for state ED issues, but that's about it.
18
posted on
06/23/2006 3:23:02 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Off touch and out of base)
To: DaveTesla
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.
19
posted on
06/23/2006 3:23:11 PM PDT
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: DaveTesla
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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson