Posted on 06/23/2006 3:04:01 PM PDT by DaveTesla
Explain to me what authority a citizen has over a 'nongovernmental organization' or foreign agent? He cannot unelect them if they allow the roads to become dangerous or they try to stop us from using them.
So you are against the state taking private property for new roads and expanding roads? How else are they supposed to build roads? You do realize that there are a quarter million new residents added each year in the DFW to San Antonio area, so in effect another Houston or DFW will be added within the next 20 years. Not building or expanding roads is not a realistic option.
The private company is simply acting as an agent of the state. Just like they already do on construction projects.
I love how you selectively cut off the rest of the sentence when quoting me, which answered the question you then asked. Not sure exactly what point you were trying to make. Care to try again?
Park? Forest? Government office building? There are enough of those already. How about an executive order giving back property previously taken by the government.
"That's nice, but the real abusers are at the state and local levels!"
Moving this from a debate in the media to a written political environment was a very important first step. No, it's not a done deal yet, but it's a big first step.
I say kudo's to the Prez.
"FedGov could withhold funding for state ED issues, but that's about it."
I certainly hope the Fed withholds funding for Washington state's and Massachusetts' ED issues; they both have severe erectile dysfunctions in state and federal positions!
Why would a foreign contractor who needs tolls to pay for his highway not let you use his highway?
You must be one of those guys who think China is just looking for an excuse to stop selling us their stuff.
My familiarity with takings law is somewhat limited. Sadly, the Supreme Court didn't have it wrong in all of the controversial cases. Our Constitution's protection of private property is limited. The text only mandates that the taking be "for public use," which by its plain terms does not require that the public own the condemned property, only that the public gets use out of it. So yes, as long as Uncle Sam justly compensates me, he can take my house to build a shopping mall. It is impossible to refute the notion that the public uses shopping malls (or hotels, restaurants, golf courses, etc.). Sometimes the Constitution allows things that really suck (and anyone who thinks otherwise is reading the document in a result-oriented fashion that suits themselves).
That said, there was a case in Hawaii I think in the 1990s. That one really did piss me off. The state decided that too few people owned too much of the land, so they sold it off to private parties. The Court's reasoning was that because members of the public were buying the homes, it was public use. That went WAY off the deep end and practically eviscerated "public use" of any meaning. Classic Robin Hood if you ask me. (Unless we're dumb enough to assume that these new homeowners opened their houses up for the public to just walk into and out of whenever they felt like it. Hey, some fraternities seem to operate that way.) In other words, the Court weakened what is already a weak protection against eminent domain.
Congress and Bush have no power to reinterpret the Constitution, however unfortunate some of its decisions may be. Also, I'm not too clear to what extent eminent domain falls in the executive realm versus the legislative realm, so if Bush orders anything that seems to preempt legislation, he might run afoul of separation of powers. It isn't clear that this order does a whole lot, but this may be a case where symbolism is (or comes close to being) about the most the president can do without overstepping his bounds. I think the major issue is how strong can an executive order on this issue be without violating the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. It's worth exploring further, and I'd love to hear some thoughts from any lawyer familiar with the interplay between takings law and separation of powers.
No reason they shouldn't. Xenophobic paranoia is no reason to change them.
Thank you, President Bush. You've set the example...
Not if the federal agency in question already has been given the right to do so.
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...
Actually, I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that this EO isn't really worth the paper it's written on.
But this doesn't apply to local governments, who have been abusing the most. I'm to the point of believing a constitutional amendment is needed to protect private property.
In a political sense (i.e. putting the Administration on record as opposing Kelo) it makes sense. But, outside of the executive branch, it has no power, as it explicitly states. And even if the executive branch violates it's own policy, it still adds nothing to the arsenal of the property owner to challenge a claim of eminent domain. So, in the real world sense, I'm sorry, it's still toothless.
Or you can elect a mayor and city council, or school board reps, who won't take private property every time a member of Sam Walton's family shows up.
If the order gave property owners a cause of action (e.g. right to sue) for violations, Bush would be creating rights and essentially legislating. He can't do that. In at least that respect, it seems he has exercised his presidential authority as far as the Constitution allows.
Let me try once more. This EO provides new ammunition a court can use when the next case of econ dev. takings goes to court. When one of the courts eventually strikes down one of these takings cases the tooth will have bit.
Thanks, W, but if we have really reached the point where our freedoms are protected by executive orders, which are double edged swords, rather than by the Constitution, then we are a very long ways down the road to serfdom.
Meanwhile, a major policy speech outlining the evils of eminent domain and urging action, would be even more welcome.
Very true, but those are an endangered species in our body politic. Just 4 years ago I saw a beautiful mansion get demolished and a super Wal-Mart is there today, I suppose the mansion was "condemned". Sure citizens can take action in many communities to prevent such things, but I believe we need an amendment to protect our private property from these politicians and others who would want to take away from us what is ours.
publicly traded, privately owned by shareholders, is the usual meaning of 'public corporation.'
Thank your for both ping and the info provided. I am moving just outside of Dallas in a couple of months and want to be a little more familiar with this project.
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.