Bush issues executive order

[thecerwin]

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

 

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.

 

[Czarina]

It sounds spiffy, really it does.

 

Of all the eminent domain cases we've heard of in the news though...how many of them were FEDERAL as opposed to state or municipal? Does this decree cover those as well or is it just a lot of hot air?

[wiegie]

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

 

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 (unless it is for the purpose of building a stadium for a major league baseball team that I own).

 

fixed

Edited June 23, 2006 by wiegie

[AtomicCEO]

Of all the eminent domain cases we've heard of in the news though...how many of them were FEDERAL as opposed to state or municipal? Does this decree cover those as well or is it just a lot of hot air?

 

 

It's a good cause...

 

But if he's telling states or the judiciary what to do again, it's pointless in a very Schiavo kind of way. My theory is that he's trying to show people that absolute authroity of the executive branch is a good thing...

 

But, then again, maybe I'm just suspicious of everything this Ricky Ricardo does these days.

[thecerwin]

In my opinion it is a good thing to see any sort of step away from the use of eminent domain.

[Caveman_Nick]

It's a good cause...

 

But if he's telling states or the judiciary what to do again, it's pointless in a very Schiavo kind of way. My theory is that he's trying to show people that absolute authroity of the executive branch is a good thing...

 

But, then again, maybe I'm just suspicious of everything this Ricky Ricardo does these days.

 

 

 

I guess the question is whether or not the right to own property is a state right or a federal right.

[I Like Soup]

I guess the question is whether or not the right to own property is a state right or a federal right.

 

Well, if push ever comes to shove, doesn't a federal mandate supercede a state one?

[AtomicCEO]

I guess the question is whether or not the right to own property is a state right or a federal right.

 

 

Well.. my question was actually... if congress makes a law about eminent domain, and the courts uphold that law... what right does the president have to say, "Here's the new law". That's not his place in government. He's not king, yet. He has specific jobs, and making laws ain't one of them.

[thecerwin]

Well.. my question was actually... if congress makes a law about eminent domain, and the courts uphold that law... what right does the president have to say, "Here's the new law". That's not his place in government. He's not king, yet. He has specific jobs, and making laws ain't one of them.

 

Congress didn't make this law. The use of eminent domain was granted much wider powers than intended through the Supreme Court. It used to be that the government could take land for "public use". Now they can take land from a private citizen for other private purposes with the intention of raising tax revenues. It is not the judicial branch's job to create laws.

 

The current rule on public use upholding the eminent domain power of state government was generally affirmed by Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), though the justices recognised that the several states have the authority to pass statutes or state constitutional amendments further restricting eminent domain by either defining "public use" narrowly in their states or by granting property owners more rights than the federal Constitution if they so chose. Many have taken up the challenge, with Alabama, New Hampshire, and several other states passing temporary statutes as well as constitutional amendments to restrict eminent domain strictly to uses in which the property will be owned by a government entity. Conversely, some other communities have taken Kelo as a license to seize at will.

ETA: Got the italic stuff from wikipedia.

Edited June 24, 2006 by thecerwin

[AtomicCEO]

Congress didn't make this law. The use of eminent domain was granted much wider powers than intended through the Supreme Court.

 

 

Ok... well, same deal... it's not the job of the president to tell the Supreme Court how to interpret laws. His job is only to appoint people to the Supreme Court.

[thecerwin]

Ok... well, same deal... it's not the job of the president to tell the Supreme Court how to interpret laws. His job is only to appoint people to the Supreme Court.

 

It is the President's job to sign laws into power. No President has signed a law that allows the government to seize land from one private entity so another private entity can use it "better."

[AtomicCEO]

It is the President's job to sign laws into power. No President has signed a law that allows the government to seize land from one private entity so another private entity can use it "better."

 

 

As far as I know... that was the case of a state doing that. So, no... no president did.

 

It's not supposed to be the job of the president to tell states what to do either.

[wiegie]

It is the President's job to sign laws into power. No President has signed a law that allows the government to seize land from one private entity so another private entity can use it "better."

 

no, but this president did at one time actually use eminent domain to take property away from one group of owners and, in essence, give it to himself and fellow owners of the Texas Rangers.

 

(to which H8 will respond that that was just good business sense)

[thecerwin]

As far as I know... that was the case of a state doing that. So, no... no president did.

 

It's not supposed to be the job of the president to tell states what to do either.

 

States do it, but the Supreme Court allowed them to do it.

[AtomicCEO]

States do it, but the Supreme Court allowed them to do it.

 

 

And Bush still can't tell the Supreme Court how to interpret laws.

[wiegie]

States do it, but the Supreme Court allowed them to do it.

 

no, the constitution allowed them to do it

 

I am pretty sure that Justice Breyer actually voted to let New London use eminent domain as it did because the constitution allowed it, but said that he thought states should pass laws to make this sort of thing illegal.

[bushwacked]

In my opinion it is a good thing to see any sort of step away from the use of eminent domain.

 

 

Without knowing the specifics about the order on face value I'll agree.

 

States do it, but the Supreme Court allowed them to do it.

 

 

 

Yup, and that decision sucked.

[thecerwin]

no, the constitution allowed them to do it

 

I am pretty sure that Justice Breyer actually voted to let New London use eminent domain as it did because the constitution allowed it, but said that he thought states should pass laws to make this sort of thing illegal.

 

I believe it was the interpretation of "public use" by the Justices in the Kelo case. The court justified taking someones land and giving it to a business because that business would raise tax revenue. That hardly qualifies as public use.

[Ursa Majoris]

I believe it was the interpretation of "public use" by the Justices in the Kelo case. The court justified taking someones land and giving it to a business because that business would raise tax revenue. That hardly qualifies as public use.

 

According to the SC, raising tax revenue does indeed qualify as public use. That's the problem. You and I recognize that use of eminent domain as being borderline criminal, but it is up to the states to regulate it properly. Here in Minnesota, cities are still going gangbusters grabbing land right left and center to pass to private developers.

 

The problem of eminent domain for tax raising purposes could be solved if the eminent domain authority was mandated to pay the current owner at least 1.75 times the market value for the land, plus expenses. Since they're going to make a boatload in extra taxes, this would be a small price to pay and everyone would be happy.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Supreme Court? Please. Everyone knows that Alberto Gonzales is now the supreme judicial figure in the land.

[rbmcdonald]

I guess the question is whether or not the right to own property is a state right or a federal right.

 

 

Both of these amendments make owning property a constitutional right. The federal government has the right and the responsibility to prevent a state from denying a citizen of their constitutional rights. Therefore I would think that limiting a state's power of eminent domain would be under the prerogative of the federal government. If a state thought that the federal government (legislative or executive branch) was unfairly trying to limit their right of eminent domain, then the state would go to the Supreme Court, and try and get them to rule that they were not being unreasonable in their seizer.

 

Amendment IV FULL TEXT

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Amendment XIV PARTIAL TEXT

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[rbmcdonald]

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

 

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.

 

 

 

(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.

 

I am not to good at legalese, but I did read the whole order. As best I can tell what the order says is that the Federal Government should follow the law. While I certainly support that concept, I am not sure that an executive order saying it should be necessary or desirable. Let’s see emotional issue, blah blah blah response that does not really do anything. Lack of discussion about tax reform, deficient reduction, reducing wasteful spending and pork barrel politics, hmmmm, midterm elections must be just around the corner.

Edited June 24, 2006 by rbmcdonald

[AtomicCEO]

(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.

 

 

There we go, thanks rbmc, I didn't read far enough to see that... but that text is exactly what I was saying. This whole executive order is just a press release... not an enforceable law or anything.

 

It's not the president's job to make law or tell the Supreme Court how to interpret it.

Edited June 24, 2006 by AtomicCEO

[The Irish Doggy]

(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.

 

 

 

 

Typical. More hot air from the White House.

[thecerwin]

I still welcome the press release. It was a bad decision by the Supreme Court and needs to be corrected. Like Atomic and rbmcdonald have said, the executive order doesn't do much of anything. It is a good thing that the issue is being brought up. Now congress needs to react and make a good law.