Replies

But of course it doesn't. I'm saying this Executive Order, however, is protecting existing and future plans for the Corridor.

INTERNATIONALIZING U.S. ROADS

2006 STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM (Texas GOP.org [pdf file]

On Saturday, June 3, 2006, the Republican Party of Texas adopted their 2006 State Republican Party Platform. Under the first section of their platform, titled Preserving American Freedom, is a plank specific to the Trans-Texas Corridor. It reads:

"Trans-Texas Corridor — Because there are issues of confiscation of private land, State and National sovereignty and other similar concerns, we urge the repeal of the Trans-Texas Corridor legislation."
[page P-4]
Also under the first section of their platform, titled Preserving American Freedom, is a plank addressing the use of eminent domain. It reads:

"Eminent Domain — We support limiting the definition of eminent domain to exclude seizing private property for public or private economic development or for increased tax revenues. We urge the Legislature to amend the Texas Property Code to protect the rights of private property owners by notification of their rights under the law with regard to condemnation and to require the condemner to show the just need for the action by petitioning a court of jurisdiction with significant due process safeguards for the land owner. We believe that the taking of property should follow with immediate compensation to the property owner." [page P-3]

Thanks for the info, My question is, does Sec 1 supercede Sec 3 ?

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. 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.

Will some in this country argue that it is not to the benefit of the general public and there is no military, law enforcement or public safety concern ?