![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
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
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
.
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
![]() |