Lindaland
  Global Unity
  New Executive Order

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   New Executive Order
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4561
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 23, 2006 10:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted June 23, 2006 10:42 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
what you take..you lack..because of what you do not give. ...
LOve

Me


I've been giving this whole war some thought..
Universal Laws..Black and white..good and bad..
each counrty/entity..has it's own karma..when we interfere..we are producing karma for OurSelves..
Oh My!


LOve and Respect for ALL. .

any thoughts..I'm wondering..what we are doing?

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 23, 2006 11:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Great post, jwhop. Thanks so much for that. I'm very glad the Pres. did this.

------------------
"To learn is to live, to study is to grow, and growth is the measurement of life. The mind must be taught to think, the heart to feel, and the hands to labor. When these have been educated to their highest point, then is the time to offer them to the service of their fellowman, not before." - Manly P. Hall

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted June 23, 2006 11:06 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
unfortunately..I don't think this will be able to be upheld..land will always be taken by force..nothing has changed..

it's up to each individual to want Peace
literally. ...

whatever is needed, is taken by huMANS. .

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4561
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 23, 2006 11:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The rewriting of the Constitution by Judicial fiat in the Kelo v. New London case sparked outrage across the country.

States have been writing new provisions into state constitutions that private property will not be taken by eminent domain for other private users use.

The US Congress passed legislation in effect saying any private development of property seized by eminent domain from a private property owner will not be financed by the federal government.

And now this Executive Order which says essentially that the Federal Government will not seize private property except for a "public" use.

The Supreme Court altered the 5th Amendment to include the taking of private property for a "private use". But the language of the 5th Amendment is clear.

" nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

None of these moves to protect private property rights of citizens would have been necessary if the US Supreme Court hadn't illegally overridden the clear language and meaning of the 5th Amendment.

You can imagine who was for rewriting the Constitution by Judicial fiat and who was against it.

For...the most liberal members of the Court.

John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.

Against...the more conservative members of the Court.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4561
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 24, 2006 03:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hollywood can't use eminent domain to seize family's building for high-rise, judge rules

By John Holland
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted June 23 2006, 10:06 AM EDT


HOLLYWOOD -- The city cannot take a family's downtown property and give it to a private developer, a judge ruled Thursday, ending a two-year legal battle and potentially jeopardizing a $100 million condominium complex.

Broward Circuit Court Judge Ronald J. Rothschild's ruling in favor of the Mach family, which has owned the 2,900-square-foot building on Harrison Street for decades, came as a blow to Mayor Mara Giulianti and city commissioners.

They wanted to use eminent domain to replace the Mach structure with a 19-story condo and retail tower as part of downtown revitalization plans.

The ruling also means developer Charles "Chip" Abele will have to either renegotiate with the Machs or come up with a new design plan for his condos. He said he has already offered the Mach family $1.2 million for the property, which is valued at $800,000.

"This just shows that a lot of people unified can stand up to a bully, to a government that they don't think is doing the right thing," said David Mach, whose late father bought the building after immigrating from Hungary and died during the negotiation process with the city.

Mach said he and his mother have no intention of selling their building, which houses a beauty salon and other business at the corner of Harrison Street and 19th Avenue.

"I just got off the phone with my mother and she was crying," Mach said. "She was too emotional to be here, but she is very happy."

The Mach case has dragged on for two years and become a cause for property-rights advocates, particularly in light of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Kelo vs. New London, that said cities can take property from individuals and sell it to private entities.

Citing those two cases, the Florida Legislature earlier this year changed Florida law to ensure that private property can be taken only for public use, such as to build highways, schools, railroads or other public projects.

Judge Rothschild's ruling was very narrow and followed a three-day trial in April and May. He said testimony showed the city and Abele didn't need the building to complete the project, a must for eminent domain. And he said the city's argument that taking the property would help save some portions of the historic Great Southern Hotel had no legal basis or precedent.

As part of an agreement Abele reached with the city two years ago, commissioners agreed to use eminent domain powers on his behalf if he preserved part of the hotel. The final plans would have saved some of the facade but gutted the hotel's interior.

Rothschild also found that neither Abele nor the city did anything improper during the eminent domain process, but said they did not have legally sufficient grounds to win in court.

There was one consolation for the city: Rothschild rejected arguments by Mach's lawyers that the entire Community Redevelopment Agency, which authorized the taking, was illegal and improperly structured.

"We are extremely pleased that the judge ruled that the CRA was proper and that the city dealt with everyone fairly," Giulianti said. "I just don't want to see Chip [Abele] up his offer to the Machs, because it sends a message to property owners that they can demand whatever they want from developers."

Abele, who has already spent millions on building plans and assembling the surrounding parcels, said he's not sure what happens next. He'll likely ask the city to appeal the ruling, which they must under terms of the development agreement he reached with commissioners two years ago.

Abele will pay the costs.

"It's a little bit complicated, and I know the judge was very careful in his ruling, but I'm not sure he was right," Abele said. "If the question is, do we need that property to physically build our project, then the answer is no.

"But if you're looking at the whole needs of a community, to make sure that it's safe for pedestrians and foot traffic all around, and that you keep redeveloping the area, then there's no question that we need that property," said Abele, who is also building a $325 million condo and retail complex on the northeast side of Young Circle.

With this year's legislative changes, Mach is one of the last cases in Florida pitting private owners against developers backed by elected city officials. Now, without eminent domain powers, developers will have to deal directly with landowners.

Abele said he hopes to resume negotiations with the Machs. "I do know that if we build around his place, that 2,900-square-foot building isn't going to be worth anything near what we're offering."
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-sdo main23jun23%2C0%2C3342710.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted June 24, 2006 03:29 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good News!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4561
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 26, 2006 02:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Home defines security of American Dream
By Susette Kelo
Posted June 23 2006

One year ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that my home could be taken by the government and handed over to another private party for their private use. The only requirements are that the city must have some plan in place that says another owner could create more jobs and pay more taxes than I do. There went my property rights -- and yours, too.

Hardly a day goes by as I work in my garden or have a cup of coffee in my kitchen, both of which overlook the Thames River and the Long Island Sound, that I don't ask myself this question: "If I had to do it all over again, would I?"

Even on my worst days, and there have been many, my answer is always the same: absolutely yes.

It was in February 1998 that I first heard that Pfizer was coming to town. I remember thinking that this was going to be trouble for us in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood that is located right next door. Little did I know how prophetic that thought was.

I immediately phoned then-Mayor Lloyd Beachy, who shared my concern and would take the side of homeowners. He suggested I call a local activist to see what I could do to defend my home. Since that day, Lloyd and thousands of others have become my sounding boards, my comrades in arms, and my best friends. Over 500 came to New London from as far away as Kentucky and Texas for a rally last July 5 to protest the notorious Supreme Court decision that carries my name. Without their help and support and that of the Institute for Justice, my fight would have been over years ago.

Where do I stand at this point and what do I think should happen now? Since I am still in my home and still battling to keep it, I think what I have thought from the very beginning: This is my home, and no one has the right to take it from me, especially for the vague concept of "economic development." I tell you, honestly and from my heart, that nothing will cause me to change my goals or my values.

Mark Twain wrote, "Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist, but you have ceased to live." My illusion has been, and will continue to be, that my home is mine.

Had the city of New London needed our homes for a school or a fire station, we would have understood that it was truly a "public use" and we would have complied. But there is no public use here. Building a hotel or upscale condominiums so someone else can live there is not a public use or even a public purpose. The sad truth is that there are no specific plans for the land where our homes stand.

Where do I stand at this point? Exactly where I stood almost eight years ago: uncertain of the outcome and unsure of my future.

What do I think should happen now? What I thought should happen eight years ago. I and the Cristofaro family should be allowed to keep our homes and live our lives in peace. We should be able to pass these homes on to our children and grandchildren. This is America, isn't it? Doesn't that simple desire define the safety and security of the American Dream? That is the dream five justices gave away.

In September 2005, when we again received eviction notices, Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell intervened on our behalf asking the New London Development Corp. to rescind those notices and declare a moratorium on eminent domain until the Legislature had time to consider a bill that would protect property owners in Connecticut. An informal moratorium is in place to protect those whose homes were condemned after mine, but it was not retroactive. The Legislature failed to act and now Connecticut property owners are right back in the same boat I find myself in.

This has been a stressful eight years. More often than not, I wake up exhausted, discouraged and wondering if all this is worth it. But even though I've lost my rights, and I've lost my property, I cannot quit. I want to keep my home.

The threat of eminent domain continues even though the governor has asked that our homes be incorporated into the redevelopment project. The City Council rejected that suggestion and chose instead to evict us. We now face the very real prospect that when the wrecking crew is trundling down the road that the city councilors -- my own city officials who are supposed to protect my rights -- will have us dragged from our homes.

I and other family who remain, who are outraged by this gross violation of our basic civil rights, still plan to keep our homes. That's how much they mean to us. We plan to keep fighting.

Someday a day of reckoning will come to all. We will all have to answer for things we've done or failed to do. On that day, I would much rather be me than the people trying to take my home.

Susette Kelo was the lead plaintiff in Kelo vs. City of New London, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private property could be taken for private economic development. The ruling was handed down one year ago today.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-23forum23jun23%2C0%2C3920785.story?coll=sfla-news-opinion

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 14449
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 01, 2012 05:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Is this Order still in effect?

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4561
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 02, 2012 01:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't know Randall.

I do know O'Bomber rescinded and/or revised some Bush Executive Orders.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 14449
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 03, 2012 10:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Obama is a real piece of work.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 4561
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 03, 2012 11:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There was something about O'Bomber that started the bells clanging and red lights flashing from the first time I ever heard him speak...at the 2004 DNC convention.

I agree, O'Bomber is a real piece of work!

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 14449
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 04, 2012 10:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Me, too. I immediately sensed something awry with him.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2012

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a