Kelo on the ropes?

[DngrMse]

President Bush issued an executive order today, recognizing property rights, and specifically forbidding the govt from taking from a private entity, to give to another private entity, (with some exceptions....common carrier stuff, it looks like). This might be good news....but honestly, I'm not sure if the EO affects state governments, and I don't how effective it would otherwise be.

here be the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...060623-10.html

[fenianforever1689]

An Executive Order wouldn't override a Supreme Court decision.

{separation of powers and all that**.

It seems more of a direction to justice than it is to anyone else.

[PlatyGuy]

I've written about Kelo twice before, and it might surprise those who have tried to pigeonhole me as a Bush-hating socialist to know that I disagreed strongly with the court's decision. Here's some of what I had to say the first time:

I think neither Stevens (who wrote the court’s decision) nor Kennedy consider that the preservation of rights is itself a public good, and we are all harmed when those rights are taken away from anyone. Stevens considers only whether the public benefit is greater than zero (to preclude takings that only benefit private parties) while Kennedy considers whether it’s greater than the private benefit (to determine intent) but neither considers the harm which I believe also needs to be part of this calculation.

...and the second:

Anderson’s argument, spread across the last several paragraphs, is basically that taking people’s property against their will is OK as long as we pay them enough. It’s tempting to argue that this is like saying it’s OK for a thief to break into your home (or perhaps even rape you) so long as they pay you the market rate for what they’ve taken after the fact

In that context, I have to say that I applaud Bush's apparent attempt to nullify Kelo as far as the federal government is concerned. DngrMse is correct to point out that the EO does not bind state or local government, though, and I must add one more caveat based on the text which I excerpt below.

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.

What does "not merely" mean? Well, it doesn't mean an absolute prohibition on this kind of taking. It might even mean that such takings will occur, with the administration making up some facile public-interest argument just so they can drive through the loophole. However, for now, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt for standing up to the court and sending a clear message that people's rights are not so easily dismissed as the court would allow.

[hadit]

Originally Posted by PlatyGuy

I've written about Kelo twice before, and it might surprise those who have tried to pigeonhole me as a Bush-hating socialist to know that I disagreed strongly with the court's decision.

Hating or liking Bush has nothing to do with opinions on Supreme Court decisions. Very few people are monolithic in their political opinions.

[BooRadley]

Kelo wasn't the bad decision. Berman v. Parker in 1954 was. Unless Berman was thrown out (which it should have been), then Kelo was the right decision.

A small handfull of people were already vocally opposed to that abuse of eminent domain prior to Kelo, but the majority only got pissy once they realized that it could be applied to the middle class, as well. The "right" of the government to appropriate private property to be transfered to other private owners was created in the first case. That only applied to poor people, though, so all the self-righteous little rightwingers didn't really care.

It wasn't until Kelo that it was decided that if you can take property in lowerclass neighborhoods to give it to middleclass people, then you can do the same with middleclass properties. That's when all these "principled" people suddenly noticed.

Kelo only said that people with money don't get special rights.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

Kelo wasn't the bad decision. Berman v. Parker in 1954 was. Unless Berman was thrown out (which it should have been), then Kelo was the right decision.

A small handfull of people were already vocally opposed to that abuse of eminent domain prior to Kelo, but the majority only got pissy once they realized that it could be applied to the middle class, as well. The "right" of the government to appropriate private property to be transfered to other private owners was created in the first case. That only applied to poor people, though, so all the self-righteous little rightwingers didn't really care.

You have a very poor grasp of what us 'self-righteous little rightwingers' are, much less what we care about.

It wasn't until Kelo that it was decided that if you can take property in lowerclass neighborhoods to give it to middleclass people, then you can do the same with middleclass properties. That's when all these "principled" people suddenly noticed.

Kelo only said that people with money don't get special rights.

On this note, since you're obviously not taking the high road, I'll just bow out, and let you get on with your pewling, hand-wringing, and whinging.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

You have a very poor grasp of what us 'self-righteous little rightwingers' are, much less what we care about.



On this note, since you're obviously not taking the high road, I'll just bow out, and let you get on with your pewling, hand-wringing, and whinging.

Well, you managed to completely avoid making any point. Then again, that's not exactly breaking new ground, is it?

[boedicca]

This is a good development.

[BooRadley]

It is, it's just a shame that no one wanted to do anything about it when it was only used to take land from the lower class to give it to the middle class.

[Feenix566]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

Kelo wasn't the bad decision. Berman v. Parker in 1954 was. Unless Berman was thrown out (which it should have been), then Kelo was the right decision.

A small handfull of people were already vocally opposed to that abuse of eminent domain prior to Kelo, but the majority only got pissy once they realized that it could be applied to the middle class, as well. The "right" of the government to appropriate private property to be transfered to other private owners was created in the first case.

Up to this point, reading your post, i was thinking, "wow, maybe i can learn something from BooRadley."

That only applied to poor people, though, so all the self-righteous little rightwingers didn't really care.

It wasn't until Kelo that it was decided that if you can take property in lowerclass neighborhoods to give it to middleclass people, then you can do the same with middleclass properties. That's when all these "principled" people suddenly noticed.

Kelo only said that people with money don't get special rights.

But then you had to throw in your trademark "I hate righty" spin that you always throw into every single post that you make.

Like DngrMse said, you don't understand anything about conservatives. And as long as you refuse to try, nothing's ever gonna change.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Feenix566

Like DngrMse said, you don't understand anything about conservatives. And as long as you refuse to try, nothing's ever gonna change.

Doesn't change the fact that the "outrage" drummed up on freerepublic and fox news is garbage. If it were a principled opposition, I'd be able to search through old threads from before this decision and see just as much outrage.

I'm still glad that Bush is taking a symbolic stand against it, it's one of the few good things he's done in office, but it's a shame that it's been left to become a common practice for the last sixty years because no one cared until it was applied equally, regardless of the social status of the owner.

[BooRadley]

You know, on second thought, I'm not so glad he did this. The guy just single-handedly over-turned a Supreme Court ruling. He's bypassed the Legislative and over-turned the Judiciary. If this is legal, it shouldn't be.

The intent is right, or at least it would have been sixty years ago, but the whole single branch government thing isn't the way to do it.

[fenianforever1689]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

You know, on second thought, I'm not so glad he did this. The guy just single-handedly over-turned a Supreme Court ruling. He's bypassed the Legislative and over-turned the Judiciary. If this is legal, it shouldn't be.

The intent is right, or at least it would have been sixty years ago, but the whole single branch government thing isn't the way to do it.

Maybe you should actually read it.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the talking points would come out on how to criticize the president for this action.

First, the president is the policy maker for the country. Remember when he said that he is the "decider" and all the lefties got their panties in a bunch?

Well it's true. He is the decider.

The issuance of an executive order does not overwhelm or negate either the legislature or the judicial branches of the government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

An executive order is an edict issued by a member of the executive branch of a government, usually the head of that branch.

The term is mostly used by the United States Government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council

Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.

Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.

Nowhere was I able to find where an executive order has overturned the will of the court or of the legislature.

Maybe you are being hyperbolic, as usual?



But here is the order: {from the original link to the White House that was provided in the thread's original post**

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.

This is a policy direction which is entirely within the recognized rights of the president.

As I said right in the beginning this is more to the Justice Department on how the president expects this issue to be handled.

Of course, he is right too.

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

This is in direction to the attorney general who is the HEAD of the Justice Department.

(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).

More of less, the president is affirming the CORRECT position that land should not be taken from one private individual to the benefit of another.


This in no way excludes Kelo, {unfortunately**.

The president doesn't have the power to assign his executive order to all of the myriad local jurisdictions in the country.

ONly to the way in which the feds handle themselves.

And since his is the head of the federal government you are wrong.

As always.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

Well, you managed to completely avoid making any point. Then again, that's not exactly breaking new ground, is it?

And just bashing those who don't see eye to eye with you politically is 'making a point'?

Further to your liberal hand-wringing above, the woman in the Kelo case is elderly, retired, and certainly not rich. The coroporation which is taking her land is, very. If your bedwetting liberal opinion of 'right wingers' was correct, we'd all be cheering this action. We aint.

And you're for it. That says something.

[Java_man]

Originally Posted by Feenix566

But then you had to throw in your trademark "I hate righty" spin that you always throw into every single post that you make.

It is worth noting you have said nothing of this kind in response to the countless "hate lefty" comments that are endlessly typed from several of the DA extreme right wingers

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

And just bashing those who don't see eye to eye with you politically is 'making a point'?

Further to your liberal hand-wringing above, the woman in the Kelo case is elderly, retired, and certainly not rich. The coroporation which is taking her land is, very. If your bedwetting liberal opinion of 'right wingers' was correct, we'd all be cheering this action. We aint.

And you're for it. That says something.

In your fascist mewling, hand-wringing, bedwetting, whinging (Christ, son, how do you take yourself seriously with this crap), you didn't make a point. If you were able to read, you would have noticed that I did make several points, and that I specifically said there were small numbers of people who are standing on principle on this, just not any who post here. Just handwringing, mewling and whinging bedwetters.

And, if you were able to read, you would have also noticed that I do not support taking the property of the people in the case that was cited.

That's only if you were able to read though, instead of mewling and hand-wringing.

Originally Posted by fenianforever1689

This is a policy direction which is entirely within the recognized rights of the president.

As I said right in the beginning this is more to the Justice Department on how the president expects this issue to be handled.

Okay, you've got a point. That was an afterthought, and it was misplaced.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by Java_man

It is worth noting you have said nothing of this kind in response to the countless "hate lefty" comments that are endlessly typed from several of the DA extreme right wingers

It's different when right-wingers do it. They're special.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

It's different when right-wingers do it. They're special.

More bullshit, and pointless whining.

You are on a roll!

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by DngrMse

More bullshit, and pointless whining.

You are on a roll!

So have you come up with a point to make yet? Just lashing out at me isn't actually making a point. As much as your mewling and handwringing may amuse you while you're whinging and bedwetting, it doesn't really have a place in this thread.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

So have you come up with a point to make yet? Just lashing out at me isn't actually making a point. As much as your mewling and handwringing may amuse you while you're whinging and bedwetting, it doesn't really have a place in this thread.

Are you going to make a point????

Other than engaging in partisan sniping, or is this all you got?