OMG!! Did Bush Just Actually Do Something Right?

world

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.

link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html

Is this too good to be true? Bush fucks up all the time, but has he finally done something that us true conservatives and libertarians can be proud of?!?! It was just posted on Drudge, im sure we will find out in the next weeks if this actually matters to the cases of peoples homes being taken by local governments for strip malls and condo buildings.

MLC2006

I would agree that it sounds right, but didn't the supreme court make a ruling to the contrary last year? I believe they ruled that govt can seize land and sell it to corporations if they choose. Bush's fine print probably says that the government can't take his corporate FRIENDS' property without paying them 1000% above comparative market analysis with taxpayer money.

Milhouse VanHouten

It sounds good, but the language of the order seems to be a touch ambiguous.

Uncle Leo

This all stems, I suspect from the Connecticut Eminent Domain case. I am not that familiar with it, but basically, the City of (something), CT wanted to make room for a corporate park and some high level high rise condos. The argument can be made that while it was not for public use (like a park or road) that it would benefit the City. The properties taken were single family homes (probably from low-income families, but I am not certain).

While a number of good office/residential uses can increase a tax base, it is at best qeustionable to take away private property to create other private property.

So this case, while helping the plan of that Connecticut City, probably will have a backlash that will assure that this almost never happens again.

On a LEGAL basis, I have no idea whether this was a good decision (I am pro-choice and I think roe v. wade was a bad LEGAL decision). But I am not comfortable with the idea that the government can take my land and give it to a corporation.

However, eminant domain has a role (for example, almost every road you drive on) and should not totally go away--but only for public uses...and the compensation should be like 150% of market value. Nobody should be short changed...

Pearl Jam and toast

Never take something from the white house strait.

there are usually loopholes or backhanded language.

*sigh* :(

it sounds good though.

Uncle Leo

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

Never take something from the white house strait.

there are usually loopholes or backhanded language.

*sigh* :(

it sounds good though.

It might be. Private property rights are a big conservative thing. I know helping rich buddies is a big Bush thing, but I don't think he'd be doing this in response to this case that angered so many, if it was not for the purpose of making it legit.

Pearl Jam and toast

Uncle Leo wrote:

It might be. Private property rights are a big conservative thing. I know helping rich buddies is a big Bush thing, but I don't think he'd be doing this in response to this case that angered so many, if it was not for the purpose of making it legit.

yeah that was running through my mind..

there's no telling what exactly they mean sometimes.

world

I have to belive that hes pissed off so many true conservatives with making the government bigger(homeland security), not privatizing Social Security, and just overall fucking up. That this is someway in response to his base that is fleeing him.