Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...060623-10.html

Quote:

---

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.

---

Nice! :D

This is a very sore subject with me.

My main problem is:

â??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.â?�

Who determines what public use, just compensation, and benefiting the general public means. The federal governmentâ?¦..I donâ??t trust them to do it within the spirit of the law.

Take this example from here in Oklahoma:
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0601170926.asp

I realize this article was published before June 23, 2006 but still my faith that the federal government will do the right thing is about nil. After all isnâ??t tax revenue â??benefiting the general public.â?�

Re-read section 3, that's defines what can be considered public use, etc. This does, indeed, provide more federal restrictions on taking private property than we had before. Now we need to stop the States and local governments. Some States have enabled protections, others have not. I'll remind you that it was the liberal justices that allowed private property to be stolen from individuals to benefit, not the public but developers and the tax-man, in the kilo case, which paved the way for others.

This is a positive step for individual rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

Re-read section 3, that's defines what can be considered public use, etc. This does, indeed, provide more federal restrictions on taking private property than we had before. Now we need to stop the States and local governments. Some States have enabled protections, others have not. I'll remind you that it was the liberal justices that allowed private property to be stolen from individuals to benefit, not the public but developers and the tax-man, in the kilo case, which paved the way for others.

This is a positive step for individual rights.

---

Do I sense a theme in your posts? :smokin:

BLAME THE LIBERALS...maybe? LOL

Peace :smokin:

Are you denying that the liberal justices voted the way they did while the conservative justives sided with the individual rights side or are you just trying to change the subject? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

Are you denying that the liberal justices voted the way they did while the conservative justives sided with the individual rights side or are you just trying to change the subject? :rolleyes:

---

I was simply referring to the manner in which you worded your sentiments in regards to the "liberal justices"...I think it went something like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

I'll remind you that it was the liberal justices that allowed private property to be stolen from individuals...

---

I'll remind you that it was a conservative president who ruined America's image in the world...:smokin:

Sounds pretty strong, eh?

So you know what I said is true, you just don't like the truth. Typical... :rolleyes:

You'll lie through your teeth. The liberal anti-American retards were attacking Bush right after 9/11. Some blamed him for the terrorists hating America. Hell, some of the idiots here think Bush blew up the WTC personally. :D While there was a temporary sympathy sentiment, it wasn't complete nor long lasting. Bush was attacked for Afghanistan before Iraq although most hypocrites now try to claim they were always for that, just not Iraq. :rolleyes:

I'll remind you that Anslinger was a democrat, appointed by a democrat President and that the democrat controlled legislature wrote and passed the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which is WHY we need to reschedule.

No, not very strong, just wrong and stupid. The question is, are you always going to stay so ignorant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

Re-read section 3, that's defines what can be considered public use, etc. This does, indeed, provide more federal restrictions on taking private property than we had before. Now we need to stop the States and local governments. Some States have enabled protections, others have not. I'll remind you that it was the liberal justices that allowed private property to be stolen from individuals to benefit, not the public but developers and the tax-man, in the kilo case, which paved the way for others.

This is a positive step for individual rights.

---

Youâ??re more optimistic than I am

You do understand that Section 1 is like a summary and the details are laid out after, right? ;)

You still have to worry about State and local government if that helps...

we already have a constitution and numerous court cases that protect property rights...it's pretty clear the cases in kelo and in florida especially are totally unconstitutional, with people being offered 1/4 of their property/house value, corrupt local boards and city councils...it's disgusting.

and that's going on all over the country. and i don't think al-qaeda is the cause of these rights being taken away.

we don't need an unconstitutional executive order to do something the constitution already does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

we already have a constitution and numerous court cases that protect property rights...it's pretty clear the cases in kelo and in florida especially are totally unconstitutional, with people being offered 1/4 of their property/house value, corrupt local boards and city councils...it's disgusting.

we don't need an unconstitutional executive order to do something the constitution already does.

---

The problem with your claim that Kelo was unconstitutional is that the liberal majority in the SCOTUS says it is and they count where you dont. The cases that are being abused are not cases of federal government taking the property, it's all local/county/State government doing it and until the newer SCOTUS overturns Kelo or rules on other cases to set conflicting precidence, it is constitutional.

Just how is this Executive order unconstitutional? It just limits the federal government from doing what the others have been doing. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamapatient

No, not very strong, just wrong and stupid. The question is, are you always going to stay so ignorant?

---

I guess ignorance is a cycle that starts at the Right or Left...

True ignorance would be blindly supporting ANYTHING one political party or group says soley in virtue of the fact that they said it...

I am not a conervative or a liberal, good sir...I try to think for myself, as I am sure you do too!

A little harmless "politcal ribbing" never hurt anyone...

Besides, my grandma always told me not to discuss politics or religion with anyone...LOL :D


Peace! :smokin:

PS I would like it if you stopped insinuating that I am "anti-American". I love America just as much as you do, and I am fully aware of the privileges and benefits that American citizens receive...I have lived in several other countries for brief and extended periods of time, so please don't assume I am so ignorant...b/c we all know what that does.

IamaPatient's claims of anti-Americanism get old, don't they? I've been accused by him of being that way several times, and nothing could be further from the truth. I love this country with all my heart.

He makes that claim, however, because it's easy. It's a fast-draw insult, and on his end, it feels like a great victory (in the fashion of a 3-year-old on a playground). The truth is that if he didn't always pull out his favorite simplistic taunts, he'd actually have to look at and think about what he himself and others are saying. I'm now firmly convinced that he's not capable of doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

IamaPatient's claims of anti-Americanism get old, don't they? I've been accused by him of being that way several times, and nothing could be further from the truth. I love this country with all my heart.

He makes that claim, however, because it's easy. It's a fast-draw insult, and on his end, it feels like a great victory (in the fashion of a 3-year-old on a playground). The truth is that if he didn't always pull out his favorite simplistic taunts, he'd actually have to look at and think about what he himself and others are saying. I'm now firmly convinced that he's not capable of doing that.

---

Right on, Sister! :thumbsup: Just because you disagree with something or have a different idea about something doesn't mean you are "anti"-whatever...

Peace! :smokin:

Politically Iâ??m sort of a mixed bag of tricks. Iâ??m a registered Independent. I donâ??t think that any American owes any political party anythingâ?¦.THEY work for US.

Iâ??m rather conservative mixed with a little libertarian. Notice I didnâ??t say Republican. I voted for George Bush because I would have rather poked my own eyes out rather than vote for that despicable waste of skin John Kerry.

Bush could STOP illegal immigration if he wanted to. And he lost my respect as soon as he called the minute men vigilantes.

I just want a proud American leader who does whatâ??s right for America. Pandering to Vicente Fox is not what I had in mind.

Iamapatient is right about the fact that states and municipalities are largely at fault for abusing eminent domain.

However, the federal government pisses on states rights everyday so why not â??encourageâ?� them to do the right thing in this case. They have no problem chiming in and enforcing medical MJ laws on a federal level so why when it comes to eminent domain to they yell â??states rights, states rights, were not going to get involved.â?� They pick and choose what they want to get involved in.

Pisshead is also right. These rights are already protected. We donâ??t need an executive order saying â??we really mean it this time.â?� It just gives the appearance that their doing something. Iâ??m not impressed.

I donâ??t think all democrats are anti-americanâ?¦that is decided on a case by case basis. Itâ??s just a stereotype. Much like Republicans are stereotyped as being evil greedy bastardsâ?¦.like I said case by case basis. :twocents:

What sorta work do you do, Likemclever? I've wondered before. You express yourself well! (I apologize in advance for asking too personal a question if you feel this inquiry crosses the line.)

if bush is so keen on protecting landowners rights why did he take many peoples' land and give it to private contractors to build on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkside

if bush is so keen on protecting landowners rights why did he take many peoples' land and give it to private contractors to build on?

---

Hey, darkside, in all fairness to our inept president, state and national has been doing this forever... Look at any population displacement project (dams, etc.) and you don't have to do much detective work to see government in bed with developers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

What sorta work do you do, Likemclever? I've wondered before. You express yourself well! (I apologize in advance for asking too personal a question if you feel this inquiry crosses the line.)

---

Iâ??m 31 and a full time student and single mom (I graduate in Decemberâ?¦yahoo me.)

Iâ??m heavily interested in communication theory (both with people and animals.) Communication also happens to be my major. I take special interest in nonverbal communications.

Here is a link to some of the more popular com theories (just to give you a sense of what Iâ??m talking about) http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/west...s/theories.htm

How about yourselfâ?¦â?¦youâ??re a writer of some sort are you not?

Yahoo on that graduation indeed! That's great!

Yep, I'm an executive speechwriter and sort of all-purpose marketing communications person, but I'm about to finish the corporate phae of my life and return to school to study medicine, which is what i've always been more interested in all along. I'm scared but excited.

P.S. I'd love to know more about animal communications! I'm an animal-lover, and I know they have abilities that we can't fathom. That must be an interesting thing to study.

I worked with and helped train military working dogs while I was in the service. Iâ??ve seen dogs do some amazing things. Also, on the non verbal side Iâ??ve studied American Sign Language while in collage. I love it and would like to someday continue with it. Itâ??s kind of like speaking with your mind by means of gesture.

One thing I found highly interesting while working with dogs was that the handlers senses became more acute (we spent A LOT of time with our dogs.) I asked the other handlers about it and they experienced the same thing. For instance, we might be standing in a group of people talking and all of the sudden we would alert to something that was happening outside our field of vision. Kind of like how a dog perks their ears up and turns their head quickly for no apparent reasonâ?¦.ha ha well we found ourselves doing that too. I have since lost this trait so our heavy exposure to the animals must have had something to do with it.

Speech writer â?¦cool. I thought about doing that once. My minor is in marketing.

Youâ??ll do just fine in med school. What kind of Doc do you want to be?

That is so cool--your work with dogs! I expect animal handlers' senses do become more acute. I think I might make a good animal communicator or therapist.

Speechwriting is a good field. I happened into it just from being in marketing communications for so long, but speeches strike me as the easiest things to write (among things like Web copy, brochures, video scripts, position papers, etc.). The good thing about speechwriting is that it's always something I can do on a freelance basis if I want to keep my hand in writing.

What sort of doc do I want to be? A good one! Seriously, I'm sorta open. Right now, I'd guess perhaps pediatrics or obstetrics or emergency medicine. But I've been told those initial ideas tend to change once students get into their clinical rotations and internships. My husband is a cardiologist, and interestingly, that to me is one of the specialties that appeals to me least. Maybe because I've already had so much of it second-hand. I know geriatric medicine is going to be a huge growth field, and that area interests me, too. I have a soft spot for old folks and little ones.

So do you have any specific jobs in mind for once you graduate from college?

Yeah freelance would be a good decision.

I know what you mean by keeping your mind open to all options. Geriatric medicine sounds fascinating. I like old people too. Working with sick kids would be too depressing IMO. I think working with old people would be a lot like working with kids except the old people would tell better stories. There is a lot to learn from old people and I think it would give you a different perspective on your own mortality. Sort of like a preview of whatâ??s next in life.

In the morning Iâ??m supposed to start an internship with a major media organization (TV/print media.) Iâ??ve already interviewed and been accepted and my first day is in the morning. Iâ??ve been told to report to HR first thing to complete paperwork and get a badge. Iâ??m stressing hard because Iâ??m afraid they are going to drug test me. They didnâ??t tell me I was going to have a drug test but Iâ??m still worried their going to say â??O buy the way you need to go to such and such for your drug test.â?� So wish me luckâ?¦too bad I canâ??t study for the test.

I want to work in a diverse media environment (tv, film, radio, print, all of it.) Hopefully, Iâ??ll have a better idea of what I want after my internship.

However, if I had a bagillion dollars and could do anything I wanted to do I would buy old houses and fix them up and sell them. I hate new houses, they have no soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by likemclever

However, if I had a bagillion dollars and could do anything I wanted to do I would buy old houses and fix them up and sell them. I hate new houses, they have no soul.

---

Here, here... I like the creaky steps, the warped floors, and the overgrown trees outside.

Good luck today!

I have a brother in law who flips houses for a living. Buys them. Fixes them up. Sells them. He has old ones and less old ones. He loves that work. Business is slow for him, though.

Good luck today with your first day of internship, Likemclever! I'm sure it'll go fine. Certainly they'd have told you in advance if you were expected to face a drug test. Let us know how it goes, OK?

I agree about old houses. I grew up in a big Victorian house and so have an affection for older ones. Unfortunately, in the area where I live now, there are no old ones to be had. Fifteen or 20 years ago, this whole community was farmland, and so big soul-less houses have now popped up on the well-landscaped Texas prairie where corn and cotton used to grow. It is rather tasteless.

Hope you have a good day today! Check back in when you can!

Hey, well good news! They didnâ??t test me. I canâ??t tell you how good that feels.

I nearly made myself crazy. So I guess that means that I get to live to fight another day. :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graymatter

Here, here... I like the creaky steps, the warped floors, and the overgrown trees outside.

Good luck today!

---

Exactly, old houses are the best. New houses to me look about as original as shoe boxes on a shelf. They even feel empty. Donâ??t get me wrong I see why people live in them and Iâ??m not knocken people who do. Old houses shits constantly breaking, I say it adds a bit of drama. Most people when they buy a house donâ??t want to half to work on it. Either because of time or money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

I have a brother in law who flips houses for a living. Buys them. Fixes them up. Sells them. He has old ones and less old ones. He loves that work. Business is slow for him, though.

Good luck today with your first day of internship, Likemclever! I'm sure it'll go fine. Certainly they'd have told you in advance if you were expected to face a drug test. Let us know how it goes, OK?

I agree about old houses. I grew up in a big Victorian house and so have an affection for older ones. Unfortunately, in the area where I live now, there are no old ones to be had. Fifteen or 20 years ago, this whole community was farmland, and so big soul-less houses have now popped up on the well-landscaped Texas prairie where corn and cotton used to grow. It is rather tasteless.

Hope you have a good day today! Check back in when you can!

---

Thatâ??s why I would need a bagillion dollars. Itâ??s hard to do something like that, and do it the way that you would if you were going to live there yourself, and still make good money at it. Almost impossible.

One of my fondest memories of my dad is when we were kids sometime he would drive us around and look at houses. We would all point out the window and tell each other which ones we liked best. Sometimes weâ??d drive in the really old swanky part of town and sometime we would just look at normal nice houses. Me and my brother and sister would argue about who had the worst taste in houses. Good Times.

I would wanna make kids point at my houses and say â??Oooooooo look at the one.â?�

I know what you mean they are taking over here too. Itâ??s dreadful to watch

This would be a good thing if it wasn't for the fact that the President thinks he can strike down a Supreme Court decision at his will.

Liberal majority in SCOTUS? Uh, I don't think so, iamapatient. It was pretty evenly divided before Bush took office, but SCOTUS is decidedly right-leaning and conservative now. If you think the majority of SCOTUS is liberal, which justices do you think are the liberals?

I am a liberal, generally, although fiscally I am what they once called a conservative -- I like a balanced budget, and respected Gramm and Rudman for their work toward that goal, and deeply respect Clinton for his many, many vetoes of Congressional pork. How many spending bills has Bush vetoed since taking office? A grand total of...zero. If anyone is wondering why spending is all out of control, and why your children and grandchildren are now in hock for trillions of dollars, look no further than the president when assigning blame: he has had many opportunities to use his veto power, but has chosen to sheath that budgetary weapon and instead let the spending go on unabated.

It is for this reason that I prefer the president and control of Congress be from different parties, so that there is an adversarial relationship. I don't really care if the president is liberal or conservative, as long as Congress is controlled by the opposing party. True, less gets done in that scenario, but what *does* get done is generally worthwhile, and the common man usually gets less screwed-over.

I definitely do not think that it's true that being liberal means anti-American. Liberal though I may be, I have served in our armed forces, in combat; I have put my life on the line for our values. Because I don't agree with much that this *administration* has done (violating the Geneva Convention, spending a trillion or two dollars of taxpayer money on fighting a country that didn't have WMDs with which to threaten us, using scare tactics to inspire fear and thereby loosen Constitutional protection of civil liberties, rampant corruption) -- this doesn't mean I am anti-American. In fact, many of the things which this *administration* has done or sponsored seem to me to be extremely anti-American.

If we give up our moral values in order to protect our perceived greatness, we are neither moral nor great. That's something this president has not learned.

there is no liberal and conservative, left or right, or up or down, or northwest and southeast...

the real spectrum is total government control, and no government control. dictatorship and anarchy. the left and right was made up to divide and conquer.

when i read the federalist papers, there's no left or right bullshit, there's talk about freedom and tyranny.

we're as close as you can get to anarchy, with a constitutionally limited government and laws.

bush is esentially the same as clinton. we're on one path towards a pan american union dictatorship, and we get it through both 'sides' after they are s'elected.'

by the looks of how things are going with the EU right now, and even though we are basically lying down while the country's sovereignty and constitution are trampled, i don't think we'll get to the world government stage before another revolution, and a peaceful one if we can help it.