10USC284 = the death of libtards everywhere

[kennethgriffen]

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=C271u_1548971605



so it turns out trump doesn't need approval from congress. he has total authority to deploy the military to build a southern boarder wall



:roll:

[jongib369]

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=C271u_1548971605



so it turns out trump doesn't need approval from congress. he has total authority to deploy the military to build a southern boarder wall



:roll:
As long as he makes some type of push to greatly expand the process of these people being processed as to whether they can come across or not I have almost no problems with it. Have a system like Australia, and if they don't meet our requirements see if good ol Canada will take them. I do NOT blame these people for wanting to make a better lives for themselves here...So if we can make a system that tries not to send them back there people might be more accepting of it. Maybe Elon can make a hyper loop from the southern border to the northern one :lol.

I can just see some type of oasis Ellis Island esque area for them to go with big ass golden doors(since trump loves gold so much) being built for them.

[Loco 50]

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=C271u_1548971605



so it turns out trump doesn't need approval from congress. he has total authority to deploy the military to build a southern boarder wall



:oldlol:

Tell ya what. You've got disposable income, right?

1.) Bring your goofy, Canadian ass down here to Texas.
2.) Get started on building your section of the wall on some rancher's land.
3.) Record and tell us what happens.

Texas will be waiting.

http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-01.jpg

http://www.yellowstone.co/tripreports/2012/pauls/coyoteeatingelk.jpg

https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/750x428p/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/88/208/89686434_XS.jpg

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/71/10/02/14975162/5/920x920.jpg

https://www.dairyherd.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Courtesy%20of%20Chilton%20Ranch%20Jim%20Chilton%20 at%20Border.jpg

[jongib369]

:oldlol:

Tell ya what. You've got disposable income, right?

1.) Bring your goofy, Canadian ass down here to Texas.
2.) Get started on building your section of the wall on some rancher's land.
3.) Record and tell us what happens.

Texas will be waiting.

http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-01.jpg

http://www.yellowstone.co/tripreports/2012/pauls/coyoteeatingelk.jpg

https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/750x428p/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/88/208/89686434_XS.jpg

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/71/10/02/14975162/5/920x920.jpg

https://www.dairyherd.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Courtesy%20of%20Chilton%20Ranch%20Jim%20Chilton%20 at%20Border.jpg
Not saying that this isn't an issue to get around, but some of them are fine with it

http://www.fox4news.com/news/texas/border-rancher-ready-to-give-up-land-for-wall

Some others have said it's an exaggerated problem, but you could liken that to me saying Chicagos gang violence is exaggerated because I've never seen it living in a different area. (I have, but my point stands lol)

[Loco 50]

Not saying that this isn't an issue to get around, but some of them are fine with it

http://www.fox4news.com/news/texas/border-rancher-ready-to-give-up-land-for-wall

Some others have said it's an exaggerated problem, but you could liken that to me saying Chicagos gang violence is exaggerated because I've never seen it living in a different area. (I have, but my point stands lol)
Thing about walls is, they don't really work if "some" wall is built.

Edit: Also they're Trumped by the latest in tech innovation:

https://cloudfront.zoro.com/product/full/Z0uNrwlcpEx_.JPG

https://cloudfront.zoro.com/product/full/Z1sK7zjcpEx_.JPG

[kennethgriffen]

Tell ya what. You've got disposable income, right?

1.) Bring your goofy, Canadian ass down here to Texas.
2.) Get started on building your section of the wall on some rancher's land.
3.) Record and tell us what happens.

Texas will be waiting.

http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-01.jpg

http://www.yellowstone.co/tripreports/2012/pauls/coyoteeatingelk.jpg

https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/750x428p/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/88/208/89686434_XS.jpg

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/71/10/02/14975162/5/920x920.jpg

https://www.dairyherd.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Courtesy%20of%20Chilton%20Ranch%20Jim%20Chilton%20 at%20Border.jpg


yeah the military is so scared of an old guy with a shitty rifle

:lol

[Loco 50]

yeah the military is so scared of an old guy with a shitty rifle

:lol
Didn't say the military would be. I said bring your goofy ass down, since you seem to care so much.

Not gonna be a good look public relationswise to have military seizing rancher's private lands because an obese New York conman says it's alright. One of the many problems that still remains. You don't know Texans.

[jongib369]

Thing about walls is, they don't really work if "some" wall is built.

Edit: Also they're Trumped by the latest in tech innovation:

https://cloudfront.zoro.com/product/full/Z0uNrwlcpEx_.JPG

https://cloudfront.zoro.com/product/full/Z1sK7zjcpEx_.JPG
If it's built high enough they're going to get hurt falling down to the other side where there isn't a ladder lol. Sure they can bring two, but ladders aren't exactly light and making sure it's set up properly on the other side so you can get safely down might prove to be more difficult than you'd imagine. Not saying that it's 100% effective, but it does make it more difficult.

Trump WILL have to do more than just build this wall though. As you're right digging might prove to be a problem.

*edit they can use rope for other side I just realized. But my point stands it will make things more difficult than it is now.

[Kblaze8855]

Everyone in situations like this has people saying its legal to do what they do....then a judge says otherwise. Work is gonna be stopped by a federal judge in 45 minutes. Then the real games begin.

A thousand or so private land owners will flip no matter what.

Its gonna come down to Judge Roberts.

All the rest is just noise. The supreme court swing vote will decide it all.

A group of 9 people...all of them brilliant Ivy League educated legal experts...4 will say its legal....4 will say it isnt. Roberts will be the one to really decide. The law doesnt apply anymore. Its politics. You can make the law say whatever you want depending on how you look at it because even when one law works...theres always 4 more that can be applied. I wanna read the judgements when they drop.

No matter what any law says Clarence Thomas would never rule against it and RBG would never rule for it.

[kennethgriffen]

Thing about walls is, they don't really work if "some" wall is built.

Edit: Also they're Trumped by the latest in tech innovation:

https://cloudfront.zoro.com/product/full/Z0uNrwlcpEx_.JPG

https://cloudfront.zoro.com/product/full/Z1sK7zjcpEx_.JPG


the wall isn't even about whether or not it'll work anymore. its more about giving the people what the president promised them and they voted him into office for

plus its a big F*ck you to the dems


whether it works or not its a big win for trump

[kennethgriffen]

Everyone in situations like this has people saying its legal to do what they do....then a judge says otherwise. Work is gonna be stopped by a federal judge in 45 minutes. Then the real games begin.

A thousand or so private land owners will flip no matter what.

Its gonna come down to Judge Roberts.

All the rest is just noise. The supreme court swing vote will decide it all.

A group of 9 people...all of them brilliant Ivy League educated legal experts...4 will say its legal....4 will say it isnt. Roberts will be the one to really decide. The law doesnt apply anymore. Its politics. You can make the law say whatever you want depending on how you look at it because even when one law works...theres always 4 more that can be applied. I wanna read the judgements when they drop.

No matter what any law says Clarence Thomas would never rule against it and RBG would never rule for it.


a judge doesn't have authority over national security decisions involving the military

:lol

[Kblaze8855]

a judge doesn't have authority over national security decisions involving the military

:lol

Even if that were true(it isnt).....

The minute you seize the peoples land who dont want to sell a judge gets involved. You think this gets done without going to court?

I know you arent american but you should know enough about it to know nothing on this level gets done without a court battle. Democrats will ask a friendly judge to stop it. He will. It will end up in the supreme court.

Federal judges can stop damn near anything because they are there to determine constitutionality. Theres always a way in. Even if you cant stop an order to build a barrier....needing to take peoples land to do it gives a way in. 3000 lawyers are probably working on the wording now hoping to get famous. We are gonna fight about it acting like our opinions or our way of looking at the law matters....then the actual battle will begin.

If the law were indisputable it would still go to the supreme court because as I said...the law means nothing. Individual judges opinions will be the deciding factor.

[kennethgriffen]

Even if that were true(it isnt).....

The minute you seize the peoples land who dont want to sell a judge gets involved. You think this gets done without going to court?

I know you arent american but you should know enough about it to know nothing on this level gets done without a court battle. Democrats will ask a friendly judge to stop it. He will. It will end up in the supreme court.


who's seizing land. you don't own the boarder line between 2 countries

[kennethgriffen]

if there was a known terrorist group held up in cabin along the US boarder and were threatening to kill people.. the military would swoop in and bomb the ****ers outa there within minutes..

they wouldn't be waiting on some state judges approval

:roll:

[Loco 50]

If it's built high enough they're going to get hurt falling down to the other side where there isn't a ladder lol. Sure they can bring two, but ladders aren't exactly light and making sure it's set up properly on the other side so you can get safely down might prove to be more difficult than you'd imagine. Not saying that it's 100% effective, but it does make it more difficult.

Trump WILL have to do more than just build this wall though. As you're right digging might prove to be a problem.

*edit they can use rope for other side I just realized. But my point stands it will make things more difficult than it is now.

You are underestimating the desperation that these people are experiencing. You think these mf'ers walked from central america to be stopped by a less than 20-30 foot drop.

https://cfvod.kaltura.com/p/2285551/sp/228555100/thumbnail/entry_id/1_62nma8fz/version/100001/width/412/height/232

Sure, you'd stop kids from getting in at first. So to remedy that we dig. That's not a whole lotta work after walking a couple thousand miles and, bonus, the kids can even chip in on the work there.

Also, bonus concept:
https://noahhoffman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/20140418_130832-1280x720.jpg
You just walked thousands of miles. You start digging under the wall and realize this is going to take longer than ya thought. You notice however that your dirt pile is getting pretty damn tall quickly. You notice that wall is almost easily scaleable now. Who even needs a ladder anymore? Just bring enough shovels and rotate the digging shifts.

Drop on the other side is high, you say? Alright, we start dumping dirt on the other side.

But surely activity near the wall would be noticed right? What about surveillance?

https://i.redd.it/14qcpippa8j01.png

That's the land mass that you've gotta surveil.

So, let's weigh the consequences.

Pros, depending on your views:
-might slow down some immigrant families (if that's your goal, good for you)
-Trump gets a monument (let that fat mf'er build it himself if he wants it so bad)

Cons:
-not going to do anything about trafficking that occurs through the f'n border checks. Hint: bribery and corruption of officials
-going to cost billions (just because you wrangled the military in doesn't mean the work becomes free)
-easily circumvented
-alienate Texans with/by:
A.)military presence
B.)taking their land (land that's been in their possession in some cases for hundreds of years) permanently

[jongib369]

Even if that were true(it isnt).....

The minute you seize the peoples land who dont want to sell a judge gets involved. You think this gets done without going to court?

I know you arent american but you should know enough about it to know nothing on this level gets done without a court battle. Democrats will ask a friendly judge to stop it. He will. It will end up in the supreme court.

Federal judges can stop damn near anything because they are there to determine constitutionality. Theres always a way in. Even if you cant stop an order to build a barrier....needing to take peoples land to do it gives a way in. 3000 lawyers are probably working on the wording now hoping to get famous. We are gonna fight about it acting like our opinions or our way of looking at the law matters....then the actual battle will begin.

If the law were indisputable it would still go to the supreme court because as I said...the law means nothing. Individual judges opinions will be the deciding factor.

Couldn't they theoretically just build up to that person's land funneling these people to their property which would likely cause a lot of problems for them, similar to that once rancher experienced? That might force these ranchers to do something about protecting their property themselves. At these weak points stations could be set up so they could quickly react to them coming to these areas



For people to read


"Executive Order 13406 of June 23, 2006

Protecting the Property Rights of the American People



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:


Section 1.⁠ Policy.

It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and 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.

Sec. 2.⁠ Implementation.

(a)   The Attorney General shall:
(i)   issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and
(ii)   monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.
(b)   Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:
(i)   comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and
(ii)   provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3.⁠ Specific Exclusions.

Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:
(a)   public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;
(b)   projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;
(c)   conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;
(d)   preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;
(e)   acquiring abandoned property;
(f)   quieting title to real property;
(g)   acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;
(h)   facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or
(i)   meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4.⁠ General Provisions.

(a)   This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(b)   Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or
(ii)   functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c)   This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.
(d)   This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

[Loco 50]

Everyone in situations like this has people saying its legal to do what they do....then a judge says otherwise. Work is gonna be stopped by a federal judge in 45 minutes. Then the real games begin.

A thousand or so private land owners will flip no matter what.

Its gonna come down to Judge Roberts.

All the rest is just noise. The supreme court swing vote will decide it all.

A group of 9 people...all of them brilliant Ivy League educated legal experts...4 will say its legal....4 will say it isnt. Roberts will be the one to really decide. The law doesnt apply anymore. Its politics. You can make the law say whatever you want depending on how you look at it because even when one law works...theres always 4 more that can be applied. I wanna read the judgements when they drop.

No matter what any law says Clarence Thomas would never rule against it and RBG would never rule for it.
You think those land owners have no sway with Texas judges?

Edit:Nevermind, you already mentioned it.

[Kblaze8855]

if there was a known terrorist group held up in cabin along the US boarder and were threatening to kill people.. the military would swoop in and bomb the ****ers outa there within minutes..

they wouldn't be waiting on some state judges approval


State judge?

You really need to read up on the system of government you are talking about.




who's seizing land. you don't own the boarder line between 2 countries




You dont build on the border. You build inside the border for several reasons some of them international law...some logistics. You need access roads...you need to get your machines and trucks to the site. You cant build in such a way you flood the other country when it rains and the river swells. Which is why in some places the border fence/wall sections are a mile from the border.

They have been doing this a long time. There are places they skipped specifically because of real estate costs and legal fights required to take land.

There are places where the wall would leave 10-15 American homes on the wrong side of it because of laws deciding where you can build it.

I wont make this a long thing...google "No mans land" about the border and read up.

In places where the border IS the river...it banks moves depending on the season. There are tens of thousands of acres of American land on the wrong side of the proposed wall. They have to build access ports to let people through to their land.

It isnt as simple as a wall on the actual border.

[Loco 50]

Even if that were true(it isnt).....

The minute you seize the peoples land who dont want to sell a judge gets involved. You think this gets done without going to court?

I know you arent american but you should know enough about it to know nothing on this level gets done without a court battle. Democrats will ask a friendly judge to stop it. He will. It will end up in the supreme court.

Federal judges can stop damn near anything because they are there to determine constitutionality. Theres always a way in. Even if you cant stop an order to build a barrier....needing to take peoples land to do it gives a way in. 3000 lawyers are probably working on the wording now hoping to get famous. We are gonna fight about it acting like our opinions or our way of looking at the law matters....then the actual battle will begin.

If the law were indisputable it would still go to the supreme court because as I said...the law means nothing. Individual judges opinions will be the deciding factor.
You are simplifying too much. There are plenty of rational conservatives that have owned this land for a lot longer than Trump's fat ass has had this notion. They don't need a democratic judge, there are plenty of conservatives that are just as pissed about this proposition. Of course Fox News will dig up a few consenters, but the majority? No way.

Property rights Trumps politics in this case.

[Kblaze8855]

From what I read the majority of the border land owners oppose it....while being republicans as you said. They walk a very thin line. They are pro Trump....but against being sealed on the Mexican side of the border....or having their land seized. I feel for them but I dont know what to say. You vote for a guy who wants a wall without figuring out where it will go? Maybe they didnt know about international flood plain laws.

The problem is really almost all in Texas. The other states the border is mostly federal land. Texas its almost ALL private. All kinds of disputes.

I saw a republican fighting the land grab not because he didnt want a wall...but because the government undervalued the state owned land and he said hed be doing his city a disservice to sell it on the cheap.

Lot of angles.

[Loco 50]

From what I read the majority of the border land owners oppose it....while being republicans as you said. They walk a very thin line. They are pro Trump....but against being sealed on the Mexican side of the border....or having their land seized. I feel for them but I dont know what to say. You vote for a guy who wants a wall without figuring out where it will go? Maybe they didnt know about international flood plain laws.

The problem is really almost all in Texas. The other states the border is mostly federal land. Texas its almost ALL private. All kinds of disputes.

I saw a republican fighting the land grab not because he didnt want a wall...but because the government undervalued the state owned land and he said hed be doing his city a disservice to sell it on the cheap.

Lot of angles.
Exactly.

Guarantee they know every inch of the law pertaining to their lands. It's Trump they don't know. They didn't think he was serious.

[tpols]

:oldlol:

Tell ya what. You've got disposable income, right?

1.) Bring your goofy, Canadian ass down here to Texas.
2.) Get started on building your section of the wall on some rancher's land.
3.) Record and tell us what happens.

Texas will be waiting.


http://www.yellowstone.co/tripreports/2012/pauls/coyoteeatingelk.jpg

https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/750x428p/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/88/208/89686434_XS.jpg

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/71/10/02/14975162/5/920x920.jpg

https://www.dairyherd.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Courtesy%20of%20Chilton%20Ranch%20Jim%20Chilton%20 at%20Border.jpg



The most dangerous one at the bottom. :lol

[Loco 50]

The most dangerous one at the bottom. :lol
God bless, he'd take poor Kenny G's backwards cap wearing head off at a thousand yards before Kenny could even cry out he's here to help build the wall. :(

[kennethgriffen]

State judge?

You really need to read up on the system of government you are talking about.





my bad.. federal judge .. and if they can stop operations based on national security then why didnt they rule against invading iraq


i genuinely think the military/president are above judges when it comes to national security

if theres a threat to the united states then some guys farm land doesnt take priority lol

[jongib369]

Executive Orders
Executive Order 12630--Governmental actions and interference with constitutionally protected property rights

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12630 of Mar. 15, 1988, appear at 53 FR 8859, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 554, unless otherwise noted.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that government actions are undertaken on a well-reasoned basis with due regard for fiscal accountability, for the financial impact of the obligations imposed on the Federal government by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and for the Constitution, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. (a) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Government historically has used the formal exercise of the power of eminent domain, which provides orderly processes for paying just compensation, to acquire private property for public use. Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, in reaffirming the fundamental protection of private property rights provided by the Fifth Amendment and in assessing the nature of governmental actions that have an impact on constitutionally protected property rights, have also reaffirmed that governmental actions that do not formally invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in a taking for which just compensation is required.
(b) Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights. Executive departments and agencies should review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings and should account in decision-making for those takings that are necessitated by statutory mandate.
(c) The purpose of this Order is to assist Federal departments and agencies in undertaking such reviews and in proposing, planning, and implementing actions with due regard for the constitutional protections provided by the Fifth Amendment and to reduce the risk of undue or inadvertent burdens on the public fisc resulting from lawful governmental action. In furtherance of the purpose of this Order, the Attorney General shall, consistent with the principles stated herein and in consultation with the Executive departments and agencies, promulgate Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings to which each Executive department or agency shall refer in making the evaluations required by this Order or in otherwise taking any action that is the subject of this Order. The Guidelines shall be promulgated no later than May 1, 1988, and shall be disseminated to all units of each Executive department and agency no later than July 1, 1988. The Attorney General shall, as necessary, update these guidelines to reflect fundamental changes in takings law occurring as a result of Supreme Court decisions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Order: (a) "Policies that have takings implications" refers to Federal regulations, proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, or other Federal policy statements that, if implemented or enacted, could effect a taking, such as rules and regulations that propose or implement licensing, permitting, or other condition requirements or limitations on private property use, or that require dedications or exactions from owners of private property. "Policies that have takings implications" does not include:
(1) Actions abolishing regulations, discontinuing governmental programs, or modifying regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use of private property;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder) but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
(b) Private property refers to all property protected by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
(c) "Actions" refers to proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, applications of Federal regulations to specific property, or Federal governmental actions physically invading or occupying private property, or other policy statements or actions related to Federal regulation or direct physical invasion or occupancy, but does not include:
(1) Actions in which the power of eminent domain is formally exercised;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder), but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.

[jongib369]

Sec. 3. General Principles. In formulating or implementing policies that have takings implications, each Executive department and agency shall be guided by the following general principles:
(a) Governmental officials should be sensitive to, anticipate, and account for, the obligations imposed by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment in planning and carrying out governmental actions so that they do not result in the imposition of unanticipated or undue additional burdens on the public fisc.
(b) Actions undertaken by governmental officials that result in a physical invasion or occupancy of private property, and regulations imposed on private property that substantially affect its value or use, may constitute a taking of property. Further, governmental action may amount to a taking even though the action results in less than a complete deprivation of all use or value, or of all separate and distinct interests in the same private property and even if the action constituting a taking is temporary in nature.
(c) Government officials whose actions are taken specifically for purposes of protecting public health and safety are ordinarily given broader latitude by courts before their actions are considered to be takings. However, the mere assertion of a public health and safety purpose is insufficient to avoid a taking. Actions to which this Order applies asserted to be for the protection of public health and safety, therefore, should be undertaken only in response to real and substantial threats to public health and safety, be designed to advance significantly the health and safety purpose, and be no greater than is necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose.
(d) While normal governmental processes do not ordinarily effect takings, undue delays in decision-making during which private property use if interfered with carry a risk of being held to be takings. Additionally, a delay in processing may increase significantly the size of compensation due if a taking is later found to have occurred.
(e) The Just Compensation Clause is self-actuating, requiring that compensation be paid whenever governmental action results in a taking of private property regardless of whether the underlying authority for the action contemplated a taking or authorized the payment of compensation. Accordingly, governmental actions that may have a significant impact on the use or value of private property should be scrutinized to avoid undue or unplanned burdens on the public fisc.

Sec. 4. Department and Agency Action. In addition to the fundamental principles set forth in Section 3, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when implementing policies that have takings implications:
(a) When an Executive department or agency requires a private party to obtain a permit in order to undertake a specific use of, or action with respect to, private property, any conditions imposed on the granting of a permit shall:
(1) Serve the same purpose that would have been served by a prohibition of the use or action; and
(2) Substantially advance that purpose.
(b) When a proposed action would place a restriction on a use of private property, the restriction imposed on the use shall not be disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall problem that the restriction is imposed to redress.
(c) When a proposed action involves a permitting process or any other decision-making process that will interfere with, or otherwise prohibit, the use of private property pending the completion of the process, the duration of the process shall be kept to the minimum necessary.
(d) Before undertaking any proposed action regulating private property use for the protection of public health or safety, the Executive department or agency involved shall, in internal deliberative documents and any submissions to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that are required:
(1) Identify clearly, with as much specificity as possible, the public health or safety risk created by the private property use that is the subject of the proposed action;
(2) Establish that such proposed action substantially advances the purpose of protecting public health and safety against the specifically identified risk;
(3) Establish to the extent possible that the restrictions imposed on the private property are not disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall risk; and

[jongib369]

(4) Estimate, to the extent possible, the potential cost to the government in the event that a court later determines that the action constituted a taking.
In instances in which there is an immediate threat to health and safety that constitutes an emergency requiring immediate response, this analysis may be done upon completion of the emergency action.
Sec. 5. Executive Department and Agency Implementation. (a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Order with respect to the actions of that department or agency.
(b) Executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions and address the merits of those actions in light of the identified takings implications, if any, in all required submissions made to the Office of Management and Budget. Significant takings implications should also be identified and discussed in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress, stating the departments' and agencies' conclusions on the takings issues.
(c) Executive departments and agencies shall identify each existing Federal rule and regulation against which a takings award has been made or against which a takings claim is pending including the amount of each claim or award. A "takings" award has been made or a "takings" claim pending if the award was made, or the pending claim brought, pursuant to the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. An itemized compilation of all such awards made in Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, and 1987 and all such pending claims shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, on or before May 16, 1988.
(d) Each Executive department and agency shall submit annually to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and to the Attorney General an itemized compilation of all awards of just compensation entered against the United States for takings, including awards of interest as well as monies paid pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601.
(e)(1) The Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Attorney General shall each, to the extent permitted by law, take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in Sections 1 through 5 of this Order, and the Office of Management and Budget shall take action to ensure that all takings awards levied against agencies are properly accounted for in agency budget submissions.
(2) In addition to the guidelines required by Section 1 of this Order, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with each Executive department and agency to which this Order applies, promulgate such supplemental guidelines as may be appropriate to the specific obligations of that department or agency.
Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

[jongib369]

The power is there but not how he thinks, he won't get it approved unless I'm mistaken. Reading all this BS is interesting lol.