[DaveTesla]

How can congress pass a law circumventing the constitution?
The courts will only nullify it as unconstitutional.

There are only two solutions.
1. The states have to pass their own laws (some have).
2. The Kelo case must be reheard (USSC)and a new ruling
made (doubt it) or a new case must be heard and used to set
precedence.

What the president has done by executive order is clarify to
the Federal Government the statutory definition of “public
uses”

Remember were talking about the interpretation of the Constitution here.

The Fifth Amendment reads “nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.”

[shield]

HERE'S WHAT THE MOONBATS ARE SAYING ABOUT THIS EO:

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.