A libertarian move by the Bush administration…. really, I’m not kidding
Reuters reports that President Bush has decided that the federal government won’t take advantage of the Kelo ruling. Reuters’ Jeremy Pelofsky explains: President George W. Bush issued an executive order on Friday to limit the U.S. government from taking private property only for the benefit of other private interests, like corporations. The order came exactly ...
Reuters reports that President Bush has decided that the federal government won't take advantage of the Kelo ruling. Reuters' Jeremy Pelofsky explains: President George W. Bush issued an executive order on Friday to limit the U.S. government from taking private property only for the benefit of other private interests, like corporations. The order came exactly a year after a divided Supreme Court ruled a city could take a person's home or business for a development project to revitalize a depressed local economy, a practice known as eminent domain. "The federal government is going to limit its own use of eminent domain so that it won't be used for purely economic development purposes," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. She said more than 20 states had already enacted laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain for purely economic development purposes and four states have proposed constitutional amendments on November election ballots.Here's a link to the actual executive order. Happy as I am about this, two aspects of this move puzzle me: 1) Why did it take a whole year? 2) Why release this news on a Friday afternoon in the summer? That's normally the time a White House would dump out garbage it didn't want to receive a lot of press coverage. Maybe my libertarianism is clouding my judgment, but I don't see this move as prompting much of a backlash. UPDATE: Ilya Somin is not impressed: Read carefully, the order does not in fact bar condemnations that transfer property to other private parties for economic development. Instead, it permits them to continue so long as they are "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." Unfortunately, this language validates virtually any economic development condemnation that the feds might want to pursue.
Reuters reports that President Bush has decided that the federal government won’t take advantage of the Kelo ruling. Reuters’ Jeremy Pelofsky explains:
President George W. Bush issued an executive order on Friday to limit the U.S. government from taking private property only for the benefit of other private interests, like corporations. The order came exactly a year after a divided Supreme Court ruled a city could take a person’s home or business for a development project to revitalize a depressed local economy, a practice known as eminent domain. “The federal government is going to limit its own use of eminent domain so that it won’t be used for purely economic development purposes,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. She said more than 20 states had already enacted laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain for purely economic development purposes and four states have proposed constitutional amendments on November election ballots.
Here’s a link to the actual executive order. Happy as I am about this, two aspects of this move puzzle me:
1) Why did it take a whole year? 2) Why release this news on a Friday afternoon in the summer? That’s normally the time a White House would dump out garbage it didn’t want to receive a lot of press coverage. Maybe my libertarianism is clouding my judgment, but I don’t see this move as prompting much of a backlash.
UPDATE: Ilya Somin is not impressed:
Read carefully, the order does not in fact bar condemnations that transfer property to other private parties for economic development. Instead, it permits them to continue so long as they are “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.” Unfortunately, this language validates virtually any economic development condemnation that the feds might want to pursue.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
