Bush issues Executive Order protecting private property rights

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LsuCraig, Jun 23, 2006.

Page 2 of 2
  1. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    Eminent domain according to the US Constitution is taking private land for PUBLIC use. What the SC did, under the guise of "economic development" companies formed by the government, was taking private land and giving it to PRIVATE developers. That my friend, is not in the Constitution and is in direct conflict with it.

    What makes it socialism is, this very same thing is happening in Communist China right now. They are throwing people out of their homes to develop PRIVATE businesses. Same thing here.

    That's why Bush issued the order. You think he would issue an executive order going against something that is DIRECTLY ALLOWED in the Constitution? Legislatures from around the country are creating and passing laws against the SC ruling. Is that against US law? NO!
     
    LsuCraig, Jun 26, 2006
    #11
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Then you should have said that SC is for socialism, not red is for socialism. In either case it is not correct. Eminent domain is NOT socialism. Look it up.

    I never mentioned cities taking land and giving it to private developers to increase taxes. I said cities should only take land for the public benefit of renovating blighted areas. I also said that the profits resulting from the development should be shared with the property owners, not just split between the city and the redevelopers. That ain't socialism either.
     
    red55, Jun 26, 2006
    #12
  3. Bengal Buddy

    Bengal Buddy Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,599
    Likes Received:
    520
    Interesting. However, the same justices that voted in favor of the taking of private property by cities for private purposes are still on the bench. It is doubtful that they will change their opinion. Both Day and Reinquest voted in the minority, so in regards to this issue, the composition of the court has not changed.
     
    Bengal Buddy, Jun 26, 2006
    #13
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page