![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Yeah, that's about it-
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a state of constant crap to get done
Posts: 2,688
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
A blow to the emminent domain ruling?
Quote:
Link Or am I misunderstanding the import of this-looks good to me |
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
I throw stones at houses
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 9,534
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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)
__________________
http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Beelzeboobs, Esq.
|
Quote:
"(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.
__________________
traguna macoities tracorum satis de |
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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). |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
I Floop the Pig
|
"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.
__________________
'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |