| Click to Post a New Message!
Page [ 1 ] | | | | | |
|
|
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Not too long ago we were all talking about Eminent Domain
and how Private property was being seized for malls.
Well President Bush signed an Executive Order to limit it.
Taken from Foxnews.com, today June 25, 2006
Bush Signs Executive Order Limiting Eminent Domain Powers of Federal Government
WASHINGTON — President Bush declared Friday that the federal government can only seize private property for a public use such as a hospital or road.
The president signed an executive order in response to a Supreme Court decision granting local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes to make way for private development.
It was the one-year anniversary of the controversial Supreme Court decision in a case involving New London, Conn., homeowners.
The majority opinion from the divided court limited homeowners rights, by saying that local governments could take private property for purely economic development-related projects because the motive was bringing more jobs and tax revenue to the city.
But the court also noted that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit, and many have done so, prohibiting so-called takings for shopping malls or other private projects.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, welcomed Bush's executive order. But since the federal government has only a limited role in these types of projects, he said Congress must do more. Cornyn has introduced legislation that would also bar federal funding for any state or local projects in which the land was obtained through eminent domain
"The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and a distinctive aspect of our form of government," Cornyn said. "The Supreme Court's decision last year represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years, and the president's action was an important step toward righting that wrong."
Many conservatives — particularly in the West — see takings as an unjustified abuse of individual rights by government. Cities, though, backed by many liberals see the takings power as an important tool for urban renewal projects crucial to revitalizing cities.
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Unfortunately, this appears to be more pre-election political and meaningless BS than anything else. The same sex marriage ammendment flopped as did the flag burning amendment, so I guess this is the latest attempt to throw our attention away from their lack of accomplishments. There are just too many exclusions and exceptions. The republicans will impress me when they do something REAL like TOTALLY repeal the estate tax or FULLY enforce exhisting immigration law.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Chief
The Republicans TRIED to repeal the Estate Tax it was the Democrats who blocked it. 51 to 47 and the leading Democrat made the comment " they owe it to the country that has given them the oppurtunity" So Chief, I think your beef is with the Dems, the Repubs can't do it alone.
You could call anything that is being worked on in an Election year (every two years) a show and then just stop everything on the Second and Fourth year. NOTHING would get done.
I think Bush made a good effort.
You can't blame the Republicans if the Democrats want to Block every friggin Bill or load it with so much Pork it isn't the same any more.
It wasn't the Repubs that prevented the Marriage Amendment from getting off of the ground.
The Democrats Love to block and then blame the Repubs for not getting anything done. Why just look at how long Leahy stalled the Supreme Court Justice nominations or Kennedy and his Historic stalls. Come on now Chief,. you really have to be fair and in so doing blame the Democrats for their two-sided, forked-tongue techiniques.
By signing the Executive Order, President Bush has raised the flag to what his intentions are, now watch very closley to who prevents it from being passed. I assure you it will NOT be the Republicans.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Chief
actually from what I have been able to find out, an EXECUTIVE ORDER is an order issued by the President and will stay in effect until Amended by a following President. It does not seem to need a Vote.
I went to google and did a Executive order search and was able to see all of the Executive orders signed by each president and the ones that were Amended.
So it seems for ALL practicle purposes the Eminent Domain E.O. is not exactly a Law but is requested by the President to be enforced which is better than nothing. The Congress or the Senate can now take it upon themselves to introduce a Bill and pass the Bill into Law that will eliminate the needs for further exsistance of the Presidental EO, but by the exsistance of the EO would be a pretty damn good endorsement, in both directions.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Don't get me started on the estate tax law that got defeated. The Dems pushed back saying it would reduce much needed tax revenue. But if you apply LOGICAL thinking to how it was written, it would have actually increased tax revenue while allowing small business owners to pass their businesses to their family upon their death. But the Dems who ran some account office applies some seriously messed up math that even a 1st grade student would know was wrong. So they got a good bill killed and we all suffer for it.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
The executive order only limits the federal government agencies from expropreating private land for none general public related applications. It seems to me that the expropreation cases of note have been state and local governments. In other words as Chief said, so what!!
Just a way to appear to be doing something with no cost and no real effect, but it did get air play on Fox and some other media out lets.
To have real teeth the republicans in both houses need to pass new laws supporting the constitutional rights to private ownership. As the businesses wanting the expropreation like Pfizer for their gain are likely greasing the Republican wheels. We propably have a snowballs chance in hell of it happening.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Okay, here is your chance...this hit Friday in email to me through my industry which follows this very closely.
Subject: Estate Tax Battle Returns to U.S. Senate
The debate over the future of the estate tax has reverted back to the U.S. Senate. I must call upon you again to contact one or both of the Senators from your state listed below to ask them to support reasonable compromise reform legislation on the estate tax.
These Senators likely hold the key to the outcome:
Arkansas - Sen. Mark Pryor (D)
Louisiana - Sen. Mary Landrieu (D)
Maine - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) and Sen. Susan Collins (R)
Ohio - Sen. George Voinovich (R)
Oregon – Sen. Ron Wyden (D)
Washington - Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) and Sen. Patty Murray (D)
Background
The House of Representatives passed an estate tax “reform” bill, H.R. 5638, yesterday by a vote of 269 to 156. The vote was never in doubt. The Senate could take up H.R. 5638 as early as next Tuesday. The Senate took up estate tax repeal on June 8, 2006, but was unable to muster the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
H.R. 5638, authored by Rep. Bill Thomas (R CA), was written specifically to attract support from the above list of Senators. The key features of H.R. 5638 are:
An exempt amount of $5 million for each individual ($10 million for a married couple).
The exempt amount would become effective in 2010 and indexed thereafter.
Taxable estates above $5 million and up to $25 million will face a top rate of the capital gains rate, currently set at 15%.
Taxable estates above $25 million will be subject to a top rate that is double the capital gains rate.
Currently the capital gains rate is 15%, but that rate sunsets in 2010 and would increase to 20% if Congress does not act.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Is this the same president Bush who benefited from the eminent domain seisure of private property for the building of a new baseball stadium for the Texas Ranger when he was a part owner of the team? Kind of hypocrytical, isn't it?
Also, does it take 1 year for the president to digest the meaning of the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain? he's even slower on the uptake than I thought.
I think Chief put it exactly right.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Denis
I do not know where your information comes from, first, President Bush was NOT the owner of the Texas Rangers he was a Managing Partner. An Investment Group was the Legal Owner. Second, I do not see where President Bush used any Eminent Doamin to build the stadium and from what I have read, "Ameriquest Field was built on one of the old Arlington Stadium parking lots. Thus, the irregular dimensions of the outfield were planned independently rather than forced by neighboring structures"
As far as the year that President Bush took is not fair to assume he is the Sole Law Maker. Congress and the Senate have done NOTHING to safe guard the property of the Private Citizens, President Bush by creating the EO has made it very clear what his position is on the subject, it would be nice to hear from the ones who should be getting off of their asses and doing something. So far nothing.
I am being curretly entertained by Senator Leahy who feels Flag Desecration is Free Speech and that throwing Red Paint on the Whiter House is not. So the Senate and the Congress is who is dragging their feet, not President Bush, he can ONLy sign into law what has made it through the prior levels first.
If you have proof of President Bush beingbehind any Eminent Domain Seizures, I would ove to read it, otherwise I will file the comments along with Michael Moore's and Dan Rather/s and john Kerry's. Not to be hostile, but I do not like attacking people without TRUE Facts.
Here is what I have found
"Future U.S. President George W. Bush becomes Managing Partner
Meanwhile, in April of 1989, the Rangers' owner, Eddie Chiles, sold the team to an investment group headed by future President George W. Bush. Bush would serve as the Rangers' managing partner until he was elected Governor of Texas in 1994. During this time, the Rangers and the City of Arlington decided to construct a new stadium to replace the aging Arlington Stadium. Ground was broken on October 30, 1991 on what would become The Ballpark in Arlington (later renamed Ameriquest Field in Arlington).
Funding was approved for a new home for the Texas Rangers in 1991 by the City of Arlington. Construction began on April 2, 1992 a short distance away from Arlington Stadium, the ballpark it would replace, and the new Ballpark in Arlington was opened on April 1, 1994 in an exhibition contest between the Texas Rangers and the New York Mets. The first official game was on April 11 against the Milwaukee Brewers.
The Rangers chose to build a retro-style ballpark along the lines of Oriole Park at Camden Yards and Jacobs Field. However, unlike those stadiums, which were situated on irregular plots of land in crowded downtown areas, Ameriquest Field was built on one of the old Arlington Stadium parking lots. Thus, the irregular dimensions of the outfield were planned independently rather than forced by neighboring structures.
This stadium was the site of the 1995 MLB All-Star Game. It also hosted the first regular season interleague game on June 12, 1997, when the Rangers played the San Francisco Giants.
On May 7, 2004, Rangers owner Tom Hicks announced that he had negotiated a sale of the naming rights of the stadium to home mortgage company Ameriquest. The contract was worth $75 million over 30 years.
The home plate and foul poles were originally at the old Arlington Stadium"
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Limiting Eminent Domain
Wouldn't it be nice if the good old US of A was lead/president by a regular US citizen not a mega-rich Mogul. someone who knows the poor and middle class can't afford an Estate tax to pass onto their heirs. Or knows why the working poor need a tax break because gas cost so dam much, wouldn't it be nice?
David
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Page [ 1 ] | | | | | |
Thread 131346 Filter by Poster:
1 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 18 |
|
()
Picture of the Day
Coachlarry
Unanswered Questions
Active Subjects
Hot Topics
Featured Suppliers
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
06-24-2006, 05:11 
Digg It 
Del.icio.us 
