Bush got one right

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I was pleased to see President Bush sign an executive order limiting eminent domain significantly. Now eminent domain can only be invoked to take land for roads, hospitals and legitimate public works projects as has been customary for the past couple centuries. Many of you will undoubtedly recall the furor the Supreme Court decision to uphold the city of New London, Connecticut’s siezure & bulldozing of private homes to allow developers to build a mall. I saw that as an outrageous abuse of emminent domain which now, thankfully, will be illegal.

Here’s the letter from Bush outlining the Order.

2

I honestly think Bush has the best intentions for the US. His problem is [insert here].

3

quote="Phaedrus: I was pleased to see President Bush sign an executive order limiting eminent domain significantly. Now eminent domain can only be invoked to take land for roads, hospitals and legitimate public works projects as has been customary for the past couple centuries. Many of you will undoubtedly recall the furor the Supreme Court decision to uphold the city of New London, Connecticut’s siezure & bulldozing of private homes to allow developers to build a mall. I saw that as an outrageous abuse of emminent domain which now, thankfully, will be illegal.

K: even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Kropotkin

4

I didn’t figure you’d care, Pete. :wink: On his behalf I’ll say “you’re welcome” anyway. :stuck_out_tongue:

5

I agree with you. That’s what worries me.

6

The eminent domain case ranked right up there
with dred scott and gore vs bush as being one of the
three worst decisions the supreme court ever did.

Kropotkin

7

Holy boondoggle! No more eminent domain to help those developers build shopping centers in crumbling cities? Why, next they are going to try to stop the conversion of public parklands into retirement villages. And why can’t the mayor be the president of the for-profit corporation in charge of urban development? If they make that illegal too, then how will he feed his starving family on his meager couple of hundred thou a year?

8

True. He may have to resort to (gasp!) domestic caviar! :astonished: :laughing:

9

resort to? hell no boy, ain’t you ever been to houston?

why the owner of the astro’s used to serve deeeelicious domestic caviar in the owner’s box… with oyster crackers no less…

of course we slow roasted a pig in the parking lot as well (excellent bar-b-que)

-Imp

10

That decision was horrible, and I think based on some corrupt ideology. It just so happened that the liberals on the court were the main voters and one guy who is supposed to be conservative but has been known to side with the liberals many times. I really think we have some closet communists who believe in a gradual advance to communism or some fascists. They totally bent the Constitution to mean something it certainly did not mean. “Let’s give away this private property to another private owner because there is a possibility that the public will actually benefit!” Hail to the Big Businesses for they shall surely be blessed.

11

yeah… what’s wrong with communism again?

i mean ideal communism, not communism as it’s practiced.