Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

[iamapatient]

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

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!

iamapatient Reviewed by iamapatient on 06-23-2006. Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html Nice! :D Rating: 5

[likemclever]

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?�

[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.

[Binzhoubum]

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:

[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?

[Binzhoubum]

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?

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:

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?

[iamapatient]

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

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. 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.

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?

[likemclever]

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

[iamapatient]

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...

[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.

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.