Bush issues executive order overturning Supreme Court Ruling

[RVonse]

Quote by: Zeebadee So you won't mind if hillary gets elected and decides to "correct" a few rulings she doesn't like?

Yes, as I said before I mind a lot that the executive branch can do what it does, it should have less power.

[Scribbler1]

I just read the text of this thing. This is beautiful.

"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:" (followed by a list of exclusions)
It doesn't seem so cut-and-dried NOW.

"Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations."
Meaning if they don't want to PAY for the enforcement of this order it doesn't mean anything.

"(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..."
This appears to mean if it was legal BEFORE Bush signed this thing, it still is.

[RVonse]

Scribbler, in the end you are probably right about this, it could be nothing but fluffy words and no teeth. Like I said before I certainly am no lawyer. But I will still say this has been way more than we have seen from the Congress who has done diddly squat about Kelso.

So I still want to give Bush praise for the effort at least. It is one of the few times I have reason to compliment and agree with what he has done. Namely because he appeared to be focused for the benefit of all Americans instead of just his cronies.

[Scribbler1]

You may call me too cynical, but when you see (and remember) the BS that has been pouring out of Washington, from BOTH parties for so many years you just don't take anything on faith. And after reading this I cannot possibly put any faith in this.
Furthermore, I can't praise Bush because this has all the markings of a feelgood proposal which in the end does nothing.

Look at it. It says if it isn't funded it won't fly. How many things can you name off the top of your head that died from lack of funding? It might still be on the books but that's about it.

It also says it doesn't change ANYTHING that was legal before Bush signed it. The Supreme Court said taking the land WAS legal, so this order actually supports the court's decision.

And it also says the FEDERAL government will not take land, but the court decision SPECIFIED "local" governments, as I quoted.

Seriously, what MORE do you need to see this is a purely useless political move done ONLY to get a bump up in popularity?

Also, I really don't think ANYTHING a president does can overrule a SCOTUS ruling.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Zeebadee So you won't mind if hillary gets elected and decides to "correct" a few rulings she doesn't like?

Is that even a question worth asking? Or answering? You act as if Bush is making someo sort of Histroical precident, I say he isn't and it happens.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I only did a quick read on this, but did anyone spot this? ...by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government... If memory serves, this ruling said the LOCAL governments (state and municipality, etc) can grab the private property and the federal government has nothing to do with it. If that's the case it looks like this executive order is meaningless. Quote by: washington post Justices Affirm Property Seizures 5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 24, 2005; A01 The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

Good catch Scribbler.

All bush really did was to get Mr V to ejaculate prematurely.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Is that even a question worth asking? Or answering?

Yeah, I think it is. It stands to reason that if this president can unilaterally overturn SCOTUS rulings, the next one can do the same thing. Are you still so sure that this is a proper method of making laws?? Are you trying to avoid answering the question? Step up, go on the record!

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yeah, I think it is. It stands to reason that if this president can unilaterally overturn SCOTUS rulings, the next one can do the same thing. Are you still so sure that this is a proper method of making laws?? Are you trying to avoid answering the question? Step up, go on the record!

STep up and what? You are implying that A: The president cannot do this, and B: Bush is the first one to ever do this, EVER. setting a "dangerous" path.

A, the president can in fact issue Executive orders that go against the USSC, and B, he aint' the first. It helps if you KNOW the Constitution, and understand the limits of each Branch. A little history also helps.

[twoanickel]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I only did a quick read on this, but did anyone spot this? If memory serves, this ruling said the LOCAL governments (state and municipality, etc) can grab the private property and the federal government has nothing to do with it. If that's the case it looks like this executive order is meaningless.

Good and valid point, Scribbler.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Uhm, the federal government could have been used just as well. Or are you going to attempt to claim that the federal government could not have been used in this manner based on the USSC ruling.

It is of note that the President cannot order the States around with an Executive Order.

Don't you folks see what happened here? Bush released this, it bars the Federal Governemnt from stealing your land to give to another person so they can make money. Which is what the Kelo decision did.

This EO raises awareness about the issue, and is a good, solid step towards getting that aweful ruling over turned, or at least neutered to the point of irrelevaance. Is that worth appluading, or do you think the Governments should be able to take your land so another person can guild a strip mall?

[Osborn F Enready]

More of the "fluff" from Bush trying to recover much of his lost base.

This is nothing.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: RVonse You can not have federal laws that contradict local laws unless you are prepared to suceed from the union. Some local states tried that before the civil war and found out it didn't work out so well.

1) It's "secede" not "suceed"

2) There are three different types of conflicts that exist between federal laws and local laws. If the federal law only specifies federal government (as it does here), then a state or locality is free to make laws that contradict it.

Half the debate on this site could be eliminated if people would read a high-school government book.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Mr V Don't you folks see what happened here? Bush released this, it bars the Federal Governemnt from stealing your land to give to another person so they can make money.

Actually this is a non-action. ......OK, I just read tivos response. I concur with that.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I believe the ONLY time the Fed can sieze public property is if there is a federal crime committed. The only land the fed can own is military bases. Even if its just for a minute while they transfer it to their buddies.

Interesting reading look up Land Patents. Its the only way to truly secure your property.

If a National Emergency arises the Fed reserves the right to confiscate pretty much everything.
Even if you stomp your feet and hold your breath.
And we all know how easy it is to fake a terrorist attack. Right?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I believe the ONLY time the Fed can sieze public property is if there is a federal crime committed. The only land the fed can own is military bases. Even if its just for a minute while they transfer it to their buddies.

No, eminant domain is contained in the Constitution, and the federal government can take land for any public use, as long as there is "just compensation".

Interesting reading look up Land Patents. Its the only way to truly secure your property.

Land patents are mostly useless in modern law, and they are also not protection against eminent domain.

And we all know how easy it is to fake a terrorist attack. Right?

Huh? What are you insinuating here?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: tivodan1116 No, eminant domain is contained in the Constitution, and the federal government can take land for any public use, as long as there is "just compensation".

And if that's true, then this corageous presidential act, as it is worded, means that since it WAS legal this bit of toilet paper will have zero effect on anything.

But it sure sounds good for the sheep.

[RickSp]

Quote by: RVonse But the Federal government trumps the state and local governments. If a local law is contradictory to the Federal law you must go by the Federal law. That means the City of New London is not going to pull any more of this shit. Whether the Supreme Court likes it or not.

Nope. Not unless we live in dictatorship. Bush's word is not yet law. Neither are his "Executive Orders." Only Congress can pass laws and only the courts can determine if they are Constitutional.

Odd how conservatives are clamoring for the end of the republic to be replaced by simple despotism.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Don't you folks see what happened here? Bush released this, it bars the Federal Governemnt from stealing your land to give to another person so they can make money. Which is what the Kelo decision did.

As eminent domain is almost exclusively local, this Executive Order doesn't prevent the Federal government from doing anything that it would ever do in the first place. It is about as meaningful as an Executive Order which bans pigs from flying.

[RVonse]

Quote by: tivodan1116 2) There are three different types of conflicts that exist between federal laws and local laws. If the federal law only specifies federal government (as it does here), then a state or locality is free to make laws that contradict it. .

No, you must be confused about this. Because that is not the way it works in the real world. I know that California has legalized marijuana usage, yet the federal government has successfully challanged this. And there is nothing in the federal law that specifices California or any other of the 10 states (such as Alaska) can't use this drug.

[RVonse]

Quote by: RickSp Nope. Not unless we live in dictatorship. Bush's word is not yet law. Neither are his "Executive Orders." Only Congress can pass laws and only the courts can determine if they are Constitutional. .

What you say makes a lot of sense to me. But if this is true, then who would be responsible for interpreting an executive order? Because if the courts can't interpret an executive order (since it is not a law) what good are any of them?

Executive orders may not technically be laws....but as a practical matter I think that executive orders have the force of law. If for no other reason, the President has total control over the military to ensure enforcement.