New executive order issued

Protecting private property.....


www.whitehouse.gov...

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:

..............


GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 23, 2006.

In other words status quo is kept as far as eminent domain is concerned, contrary to popular belief....


Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 24-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

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.

What I bolded is the tricky part though. Any good spin doctor--even a mediocre one--can make anything seem like it's benefiting the general public. That new MegaMall is going to give your county over 1,000 jobs, raise local tax income, and boost the local economy overall, therefore we need your house. If I can convince the gov't that it's for the benefit of the general public, and not merely for advancing my private economic interests, it's all kosher.

Also, unless I'm reading this incorrectly, this pertains strictly to the Federal Government. It has no bearing on the actions of state or local governements and what they can do with your property. If I'm not mistaken, that's what the problem was when eminent domain came up a year or so ago.

Good find though

Any good spin doctor--even a mediocre one--can make anything seem like it's benefiting the general public.

Yup! And that is where this, like so many other orders, laws and pieces of legislation will likely fail. Does anyone remember the new laws passed to free the slaves? Great wasn't it?

Until, of course, companies argued they too should be aloud the same power, to own property, to be and be sued, and thus the mega-corp was born.

In Canada, the Gov't passed bill C-124 by order of privy-council. They did this in 1993. The gov't now can take ANYTHING of VALUE for ANY REASON, at ANY TIME, from any where, from any one in Canada WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
Our Children have value!
They can seize your RRSP's for an economic difficulty.

Not one single peep was made by our media, no protestors, no opposition complaints.

We have NO Property rights what so ever in Canada. The gov't owns everything in TRUST and allows us the ENJOYMENT of property but NOT ownership as long as we are good little sheep.
China has more property rights than Canadians.
Google : Canadian Gazette the countries gov't paper and look for the bill, it will scare you.
Paul Martin said "Canada is a benign dictatorship".
Too Bad all the laws are in place for a future of tyranny.

Back in Texas, when Bush was a young shrub and tried his hand at business, he basically got the government to take private property from citizens and then he turned it into a ball park. Who got the proceeds? Bush, of course.

So now we all know where Bush stands on the issue of private property.

This is a feel-good executive order in the hopes of increasing ratings. Federal government rarely seizes property as far as I know, and this only applies to them. Additionally, it states that it is still allowed for the purpose of benefitting the general public, which is, I believe, the argument they used in Kilo vs. New London. The EO does clarify that it still may not be solely for economic gain, but again, that's just for the Federal government.

Does nothing to help us.

This subject is a whole lot older than a year or two. The original town of Carryville, TN is under the lake on the edge of the current town. The TVA said here's a few bucks, move or drown.

A second case would be the Kentucky Coal Rebellion shortly after WWI in which the federal government military upheld the contracts of mineral rights that were bought by mining companies.

So the lesson here is try to retain underground mineral rights when local governments try to take your land under such a deal. Local officials will foolishly think that you being eccentric or have no idea what your are talking about. Let them build the mall and then begin mineral exploration in thier new parking lot (or faux marble flooring if you are really lucky). Be prepared to hold them at bay with small arms and explain that the federal government will forcefully remove them at your request for interfearing with legal (since you own the underground rights) exploration to secure new domestic oil reserves or other minerals in the commercial intrest of the nation.

You may now of course offer to sell those rights at a huge premium and the mall company has no choice but to buy at your price or be subject to your explorations.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Of course, If the CDC declares your town to be in a epidemic area....?

If FEMA decides your land and house is needed during a state of emergency....?

Originally posted by rollinoffset
Of course, If the CDC declares your town to be in a epidemic area....?

If FEMA decides your land and house is needed during a state of emergency....?

Then I'd think you'd be more worried about more important stuff like say...your life, rather than your property.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Then I'd think you'd be more worried about more important stuff like say...your life, rather than your property.

Agreed, just making a sarcastic point about some of the wording in the Patriot Act. This new executive order subtly reinforces the PA's intent.





[edit on 24-6-2006 by rollinoffset]