[Southack]

"While I applaud the sentiment, it's a sort of toothless order. It relies on the judgement of a bureacrat as to what constitutes public use. It offers no legal protection (Sec. 4d: This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person) should said bureacrat violate it."

That's incorrect. See post #19.

This isn't toothless...it is paving the way for eventually cutting off federal funds for cities that abuse eminent domain.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

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.

[familyop]

"This isn't toothless...it is paving the way for eventually cutting off federal funds for cities that abuse eminent domain."

Thanks.