Recent Executive Order, Eminent Domain

[FeatherFall]

This is an interesting interesting executive order: (link)

I would like the opinions of the legal eagles. It looks to me as if this is a weak step in the right direction. Your thoughts?

[KendallJ]

I am not a lawyer, but initial scan would seem to indicate that he is indicating that Executive branch will not execute takings like those that have been ruled constitutional by USSC.

He has no juristiction in the states, so their governments could still execute such takings.

How could he be forced to reverse this policy at the executive level?

a. by any Federal legislation that requires it?

b. by some sort of legal challenge? What would that suit look like? ("you have to exercise takings and you didn't???")

Seems like he's just staking out a limited policy position that would require some odd or unpopular challenges to overturn.

[DavidOdden]

It's wholely symbolic, although one could almost imagine the feds sometime in the future ordering takings to support a private business. It addresses a complete non-problem. It is a step backwards, in reaffirming the right of the government to confiscate your property for any other purpose. All told, it is at best the same as not issuing the proclamation at all.

[FeatherFall]

David, your opinion lends support to a lingering fear I had. This is sort of what I had expected to hear, but I was kind of hoping that there was some arcane or obscure legal support in this order for individual rights. It appears as if it is just more meaningless political posturing with unintended ill effects.

The value must be all in the implementation, and right now the order is ambiguous enough to be harmful. It could be used to limit the instances of the violations of individual rights, but for the most part it is an endorsement of those violations.

edit: grammar

Edited June 24, 2006 by FeatherFall