[familyop]

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.

[familyop]

"by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government..."

Oops. I didn't see that during the first reading. We need property rights protections against local governments, too.

[Just Lori]

.... such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

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!

[Candor7]

I do not like this document as it offers no protection. The only body that can help is Congress, and I am sure that our RINOs would stop any legislative initiative that prevents us from becoming a socialist, multicultural state.

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!

[XR7]

BFD

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?

[Paul Ross]

The non-effect of this on the NAFTA SuperHighways was noted by Dan Byfield of the American Land Foundation, a couple weeks ago here.

[Lancey Howard]

The problem is, any scumbag Democrat President could make up and sign a new "Executive Order" which totally reverses this one. On a whim.