Pres. Bush does something else right for us!

[texaggie]

I am new here. Thought this would be a good 1st post. I am a very strong defender of private property rights which several city & state entities have been trying to abuse lately. More on my personal information later. Following is reprinted from the Drudge Report.Com

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.

# # #










President | Vice President | First Lady | Mrs. Cheney | News & Policies |
History & Tours | Kids | Your Government | Appointments | Jobs | Contact | Text only



Accessibility | Search | Privacy Policy | Help

[jrosto]

Good first post there Texaggie. Do you know if this affects the New London decision? Or just future cases?

[jrosto]

WASHINGTON Jun 23, 2006 (AP)— President Bush declared Friday that the federal government can only seize private property for a public use such as a hospital or road.

The president signed an executive order in response to a Supreme Court decision granting local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes to make way for private development.

It was the one-year anniversary of the controversial Supreme Court decision in a case involving New London, Conn., homeowners.

The majority opinion from the divided court limited homeowners rights, by saying that local governments could take private property for purely economic development-related projects because the motive was bringing more jobs and tax revenue to the city.

But the court also noted that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit, and many have done so, prohibiting so-called takings for shopping malls or other private projects.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, welcomed Bush's executive order. But since the federal government has only a limited role in these types of projects, he said Congress must do more. Cornyn has introduced legislation that would also bar federal funding for any state or local projects in which the land was obtained through eminent domain.

"The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and a distinctive aspect of our form of government," Cornyn said. "The Supreme Court's decision last year represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years, and the president's action was an important step toward righting that wrong."

Many conservatives particularly in the West see takings as an unjustified abuse of individual rights by government. Cities, though, backed by many liberals see the takings power as an important tool for urban renewal projects crucial to revitalizing cities.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2112863

Looks like those folks in New London are still up a creek.

[texaggie]

I think this would only be from this point forward unfortunately.

[jrosto]

And it only limits the federal .gov, not states and municipalities.