0
   

EXECUTIVE ORDER - GWB GETS AN A+

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2006 07:56 am
The President gets an A+ for this one.

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

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. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

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:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(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

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) 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.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 23, 2006.
SOURCE
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 735 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 03:49 pm
oh, lookie..
A do nothing EO.

Care to find me one instance of the Federal govt taking private property and giving it to another private interest?

This is nothing but a bone thrown to people like you Fox. There is nothing there. Never has been anything there.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 11:54 pm
Such is one of of basic rights, noted in the constitution since nearly 60 years now:

Quote:
Article 14 [Property, inheritance, expropriation]
(1) Property and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed. Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws.

(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

(3) Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good. It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation. Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. In case of dispute respecting the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 07:52 am
Here in GA they quickly passed laws against such seizures as in Kelo. Every state should. However, I agree that the EO is a nice sentiment, it certainly shows where the feds stand. Unfortunately, that's not where the problem is.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 11:46 am
parados wrote:
oh, lookie..
A do nothing EO.

Care to find me one instance of the Federal govt taking private property and giving it to another private interest?

This is nothing but a bone thrown to people like you Fox. There is nothing there. Never has been anything there.


have you already forgoten about the recent battles about eminent domain? Do you forget the USSC making it ok to take peoples land.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 07:10 pm
Baldimo wrote:
parados wrote:
oh, lookie..
A do nothing EO.

Care to find me one instance of the Federal govt taking private property and giving it to another private interest?

This is nothing but a bone thrown to people like you Fox. There is nothing there. Never has been anything there.


have you already forgoten about the recent battles about eminent domain? Do you forget the USSC making it ok to take peoples land.


The recent battles about eminent domain concerned local government NOT the federal government. This EO does nothing to change that situation. Parados characterization of it be a "bone thrown" is dead on.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 09:35 pm
Pretty much nothing more than a PR move, yup.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 07:12 am
timberlandko wrote:
Pretty much nothing more than a PR move, yup.


Well I think there's a little more to it than that.

1) The President is finally exercising some leadership in these issues that many of us think should have had leadership before now. That alone has some value even if the Executive Order is not binding on anybody but federal agencies.

2) The Federal agencies have been put on notice. The Federal government owns huge chunks of U.S. properties, especially in the West. And from time to time the government appropriates more land--Bill Clinton put a good chunk of Utah under Federal authority when he was last there for instance--and the Federal government also sometimes returns lands to the private domain and also makes public lands available for private use (grazing etc.l)

It isn't much of a leap to see the possible mischief inherent in such powers. The government could acquire land for presumed public reasons and then sell it off later, or acquire it and make it available to a specific rancher, etc. The President has put the Federal agencies on notice that this will not be tolerated on his watch.

I think it set a good precedent and was a good move. And I think the President should be applauded for it.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 10:21 am
I don't fault the principle expressed, and in fact applaud the "lead by example" thrust. On the otherhand, it really has far more symbolic than practical effect - period. Not a bad thing, by any means, but meaningless when it comes to things that mean anything in real terms in the day-to-day lives we lead.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:41 am
Foxfyre,

This reminds me of those old A2K discussions about whether only Congress has the authority to make law. As you can see, there is a little bit of overlap among the three branches when it comes to making law.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 04:49 pm
wandeljw wrote:
Foxfyre,

This reminds me of those old A2K discussions about whether only Congress has the authority to make law. As you can see, there is a little bit of overlap among the three branches when it comes to making law.


Constitutionally all laws must originate with the legislative branch, however. An Executive Orderis not "law' in the same sense as the laws passed by the House and Senate. The President does have the ability to make certain policy, however, which in this case he exercised that power.

Our former discussion related to the propriety of the Supreme Court bypassing the legislature and in effect creating their own 'law'. This I thought was dangerous then and I think it is dangerous now. The President's powers in that regard are far less binding and are far more temporarl.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » EXECUTIVE ORDER - GWB GETS AN A+
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 05:03:07