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 previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 301-303 next last
To: Indy Pendance
Um, that was a joke. I know it was a joke from you.
To: Czar
82
posted on
06/23/2006 3:58:01 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(Today, we settled all family business.)
To: Yaelle
Bush used his power for something FOR AMERICANS!!! FOR NGOS. Where is the word CITIZEN used in the EO? You know, the actual people whose rights he MUST protect under the US Constitution?
The fact that he gives NGOS rights over US citizens clearly shows how far along we have come to a corporatist fascist government.
83
posted on
06/23/2006 3:59:18 PM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: StJacques
My opinion is that this executive order does nothing except to say "we're for private property."
You would be wrong.
84
posted on
06/23/2006 4:00:07 PM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: Southack
This is definitely toothless. What you propose, i.e. cutting off funds for cities that confiscate property wouldn't fall under the purview of this amendment. That would have to be done by Congress since that reflect appropriations. This order covers executive departments and makes it policy that these department will only exercise eminent domain for public use instead of public benefit, which was the Kelo SCOTUS decision standard. However, the final section makes this order subservient to existing law, and, like it or not, existing law permits seizure for public benefit. So, the bottom line is that as long as executive departments adhere to this guideline the standard returns to pre-Kelo....but, and this is a big but, if, let's say, the Secretary of the Interior decides to ignore it and seize your land based on public benefit, you can't use this executive order as a defense in court to challenge that decision. Ergo, my characterization of it being toothless. It is symbolism over substance.
To: DaveTesla
86
posted on
06/23/2006 4:00:51 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The roar of the masses could be farts)
To: Czar
I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly to explain why all of this is merely business as usual and poses no real sovereignty threats to the United States. Don't look now but a black helicopter is hovering over your house. And another thing, type slower since the ECHELON main server is slow right now and is dropping some of your packets....
To: sinkspur
You were addressing federal takings for federal highways. Nothing has changed. And that's exactly what I noted.
88
posted on
06/23/2006 4:03:25 PM PDT
by
nicmarlo
To: Czar
Our FR pretend-conservatives are even now going into the spin mode. But of course.
89
posted on
06/23/2006 4:03:52 PM PDT
by
nicmarlo
To: nicmarlo
Is there a link to the proposed corridor? I heard about a page dedicated to it but dont remember it and would not know what to keyword to find it. Any help?
90
posted on
06/23/2006 4:04:20 PM PDT
by
IllumiNaughtyByNature
(My Pug is On Her War Footing (and moving to Texas!))
To: hedgetrimmer
Where is the word CITIZEN used in the EO? You know, the actual people whose rights he MUST protect under the US Constitution? Down skippy! "the rights of the American people" is generally understood to be a euphemism for American citizens (except by conspiracy moonbats).
To: pbrown
Well I wish you a Happy Birthday and think this is better news than was a year ago. I knew the decision was last year but didn't realize it was a full year ago. Hopefully by this time next year it will have been overturned by SCOTUS but I'm not holding my breath.
92
posted on
06/23/2006 4:06:08 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
To: DaveTesla
Excellent article. I agree with this Executive Order. It seems that the White House is finally starting to recognize the public outrage when judges attempt to take over legislative functions by rewriting laws and even the Constitution to suit their personal preferences.
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Tribal Loyalties and Public Lies"
To: AmericaUnited
Why do you think that the federal government conveying land to an NGO, is constitutional or even good?
The corruption is beginning to be palpable. Everyone knows of the corrupt relationship the Nature Conservancy has with the federal government through unconstutional public/private partnerships. It will be much worse, with NGOs like the NASCO superhighway coalition and the Kansas City Smartport run by international conglomerates.
94
posted on
06/23/2006 4:07:43 PM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: Indy Pendance
RFLOL. Big desert? That plays into the NWO how exactly?
About three or four weeks ago, I started finding all of this conspiracy-theory-Bush-is-evil-how-can-you-sleep-at-night talk hilarious. Falling down laughing hilarious. I think it's been good for my health actually, since laughter is indeed the best medicine. They are so doggone earnest that it just makes me laugh.
So if there was a point to be made by the over-the-top-anti-illegal-immigration people, or the Bilderburgers-are-giving-away-our-sovreignty cabal...I am immune to it.
And I am perfectly content to let them think that it's because I am too dumb.
To: hedgetrimmer
The fact that he gives NGOS rights over US citizens clearly shows how far along we have come to a corporatist fascist government. Cue the really spooky music!
96
posted on
06/23/2006 4:08:34 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(Today, we settled all family business.)
To: Congressman Billybob
You agree that the white house should be able to condemn private property and convey it to an NGO like the NASCO supercorridor?
97
posted on
06/23/2006 4:08:35 PM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: AmericaUnited
To: sinkspur
In Texas, compensation for takings for the Trans-Texas Corridor will be paid by a private corporation.
LOL! SO WHAT?
The problem isn't who pays, the problem is who takes for what reason.
How is it that it's so beneficial to a private corporation that they are willing to pay for the State to take YOUR property?
99
posted on
06/23/2006 4:10:28 PM PDT
by
lewislynn
(Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic)
To: DaveTesla
This is a good order as far as it goes.
Unfortunately, the problem is NOT with the Feds, but with the states! This order doesn't and can't stop the states froms tealing property!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 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