A blow to the emminent domain ruling?

[Nephythys]

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.



Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html)

Or am I misunderstanding the import of this-looks good to me

[Morrigoon]

Sounds good. Basically taking away the "it'll increase the tax base" argument for eminent domain. However, it may make it more difficult to gentrify bad neighborhoods (but hey, poor people need to live somewhere too)

[Ghoulish Delight]

"Executive Orders" are an elusive thing. First off, nothing in the Constitution specifically grants the right of executive order. The "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" clause is about as close as you get.

Secondly, for the most part (prior to the last couple Presidents), they've been directed at interenal executive offices, punishment being removal from office those that failed to follow them. And, unless specifically enumerated by Congress (i.e., they pass a bill that says, "and the President can alter this law by Exectuve Order"), the force of law behind executive orders is dubious. There is Supreme Court precedent that reinforces that fact that the Preisdent does not have the power to make law.

[Prudence]

Sounds good. Basically taking away the "it'll increase the tax base" argument for eminent domain. However, it may make it more difficult to gentrify bad neighborhoods (but hey, poor people need to live somewhere too)

Could possibly squeak that in under one of the exclusions:

"(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;"

Not saying the argument would fly, just that it's possible.

I won't be satisfied until there's clear evidence that the criteria of public use, not mere public benefit, will be required and judicially enforced.

[Alex]

Since none of the eminent domain instances that have created such an uproar recently were federal, I don't see a proscription on federal instances as much changing the landscape.

That said, where the instances in which the federal government would want to do this are created by regulatory rule then it would have some power. However, if Congress were to legislate on a specific use then the authority of the president to prevent it would be highly questionable.

Further, it specifically allows the purpose for which most federal eminent domain uses of the last 50 years have occured: national parks, forests, etc., and regulation related protecting species, waterways, and general environment.

So unless there is something I'm not seeing it is an executive order than doesn't really do much (it certainly wouldn't have stopped the famous SC last year).