Bush issues executive order overturning Supreme Court Ruling

[Mr.Vicchio]

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).

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

WAY TO GO DUBYA!!!! HELL YA.

One of my BIGGEST problems has been the inaction by the House and Senate, and even the White house on the Kello (spelling?) Decision in NJ that allowed the "government" to take property from private citizens and give this property to another for the purpose of increaseing "taxes" HELL YA no mucking about this time. WOOT.

[RVonse]

He's finally starting to do things right.

I'm with you all the way with this Vicchio, its great news.

[lsbskins1]

If you know the law, this (of course) means nothing to the USSC opinion referenced in the post. The court ruled that the seizure WAS for "public use". The issue was who was the best "decider" of what was the proper definition of "public use", and the Court said that "government" was the best "decider". So, Bush has issued an order that alters nothing but pumps up those in his base who don't bother to really know the issues, they just like to get all jazzed up about them.

[RVonse]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you know the law, this (of course) means nothing to the USSC opinion referenced in the post. The court ruled that the seizure WAS for "public use". The issue was who was the best "decider" of what was the proper definition of "public use", and the Court said that "government" was the best "decider". So, Bush has issued an order that alters nothing but pumps up those in his base who don't bother to really know the issues, they just like to get all jazzed up about them.

I'm no lawyer Isbskins but this language sounds pretty clear to me:

Quote by: 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.

Its pretty obvious that a shopping mall buyout is not going to fall into the category of this executive order no matter how you interpret the USSC opinion.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you know the law, this (of course) means nothing to the USSC opinion referenced in the post. The court ruled that the seizure WAS for "public use". The issue was who was the best "decider" of what was the proper definition of "public use", and the Court said that "government" was the best "decider". So, Bush has issued an order that alters nothing but pumps up those in his base who don't bother to really know the issues, they just like to get all jazzed up about them.

Wow, just wow. Are you that blinded by your hate that you cannot read?

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.

That effectively over ruled the Supreme Court's decision. Only those so blinded by hate cannot see this. Seriously, I know you detest Bush, but are you just another knee jerk Michael Moore-bot type that cannot stop and see beyond your own hate, or are you capable of stepping beyond that?

[lsbskins1]

First of all, the Constitution would not have EVER been worth the paper it was written on if the Preident could "overturn" USSC decisions with an executive order. Second of all, even if the order altered anything, it would only alter Federal actions, not state or local ones and third, as I said, the court did, in fact, rule in the referenced case that the use the land was taken for was legitimate public use, because it said that greater deference should go to the "government" when establishing what is, in fact and definition, "legitimate public use". Bush is blowing smoke up "right wing ass".

[lsbskins1]

Just read your own post. If the original ruling said the local jurisdictional government is the best judge of what defines "public use",and the order says the seizure has to be for "public use", and the government and not the citizen or an arbitration panel or or anyone else gets to define "public use", how, if the government simply compensated the individual and claims "public use", does this order change anything? Read your own post. Use your common sense. The rest of that order, the part you highlighted, might be relevant if some idiot of a federal agency head siezed some land, and stated in the seizure notice that the seizure was for something other than "public use". Otherwise, it means nothing.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: lsbskins1 First of all, the Constitution would not have EVER been worth the paper it was written on if the Preident could "overturn" USSC decisions with an executive order. Second of all, even if the order altered anything, it would only alter Federal actions, not state or local ones and third, as I said, the court did, in fact, rule in the referenced case that the use the land was taken for was legitimate public use, because it said that greater deference should go to the "government" when establishing what is, in fact and definition, "legitimate public use". Bush is blowing smoke up "right wing ass".

You are one agnry fellow, Bush did something right, corrected the Supreme Court's mistake and all you can do is claim it's meaningless.

It's not meaningless, this is really big, IMHO is the trump news story of the day.

The Supreme Court ruled that government entity A can take Citizen B's property and give it to Private citizen/Entity C for the use of increasing Taxes.

Bush just nullified that. And that IMHO is something we can all cheer about.

[RickSp]

Three points - this executive order does not, by my reading, have the force of law nor does it overturn the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Interesting that Mr. V is cheering what would effectively become a dictatorship if the President could indeed make law by degree.

The conservatives keep bitching about "activist judges" yet the New London case is a clear example of a case where the judges went out of their way to not interfere with the legislature - to not be "activist" judges. Justice Stevens specifically said that it was the responsibility of the legislature to make laws limiting the use of "eminent domain." So now the conservative are bitching because the Supreme Court wasn't activist enough. Odd.

[lsbskins1]

Watch your assumptions. Not a "fellow". And again, Bush can not "nullify" a Supreme Court decision. And besides, what bearing does my "state of mind" (angry or otherwise) have on the truth of what I have said? Show me how I am factually wrong in my assertions and you are factually correct.

[RickSp]

Jaysus, I guess reading comprehension and/or an understanding of how our government works is not in Bill Bennet's "Book of Virtues". Oh well.

The President does not have the power to make law or overrule the Supreme Court. He does have the power to direct the policies of the Federal government via the Executive Branch. His Executive Order addresses "limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government".

The Kelo ruling provides 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.

So if someone is incapable of telling the Federal government from, say, the City of New London, they might be confused. That is if they also don't understand the balance of powers.

[RVonse]

Quote by: RickSp Jaysus, I guess reading comprehension and/or an understanding of how our government works is not in Bill Bennet's "Book of Virtues". Oh well. The President does not have the power to make law or overrule the Supreme Court. He does have the power to direct the policies of the Federal government via the Executive Branch. His Executive Order addresses "limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government". The Kelo ruling provides 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. So if someone is incapable of telling the Federal government from, say, the City of New London, they might be confused. That is if they also don't understand the balance of powers.

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.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Funny how Ricksp thinks Bush is the first President to EVER release an executive order that countermanned a Supreme Court Ruling.

[Zeebadee]

I can't believe that there are some in this forum that would cheer the destruction of the concept of seperation of powers in the federal government simply because they don't happen to agree with one particular ruling by SCOTUS. Shall we now disband congress and the judicial system and have bush rule the country by a process of executive orders?

[RVonse]

Quote by: Zeebadee I can't believe that there are some in this forum that would cheer the destruction of the concept of seperation of powers in the federal government simply because they don't happen to agree with one particular ruling by SCOTUS. Shall we now disband congress and the judicial system and have bush rule the country by a process of executive orders?

No, not at all. I agree that the executive branch has way way too much power even before Bush took office. By all rights, Congress should have fixed this problem but they seem to be totally unable to pass anything except for more wages for themselves.

That does not take away the positive outcome of what Bush did. He has helped Americans retain private ownership rights they should always have had and thats a good thing.

[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.

[RVonse]

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.

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.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RVonse That does not take away the positive outcome of what Bush did. He has helped Americans retain private ownership rights they should always have had and thats a good thing.

What you call the "positive outcome of what Bush did" is far outweighed by the damage done by his assumption of power for the executive branch. Think of the precedent this sets for future presidents, say, one named clinton. Will you be as happy when she corrects a few SCOTUS rulings she doesn't like??

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Zeebadee What you call the "positive outcome of what Bush did" is far outweighed by the damage done by his assumption of power for the executive branch. Think of the precedent this sets for future presidents, say, one named clinton. Will you be as happy when she corrects a few SCOTUS rulings she doesn't like??

Can you show that Bush is "setting a precident" or are you guys, as usual, knee jerk reacting?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Can you show that Bush is "setting a precident" or are you guys, as usual, knee jerk reacting?

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