Full Version: Executive Order-Seizure of Assets
I don’t know if anyone noticed or not, but Bush issued another Executive Order that seems to nullify the portion of the 5th Amendment dealing with seizure of private property without due process. A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury appointed by Reagan, had this to say:
I have always maintained that the Bush administration will find a reason, even if they have to manufacture an event, to nullify term limits and keep Bush in power indefinitely. Nothing in his behavior has indicated that this is out of the realm of possibility. He has already declared himself immune from any kind of accountability to the American people. He has already taken away many of the rights Americans have historically held. This latest is particularly troubling because, though the language is convoluted and confusing as this sort of thing usually is, ANYONE could be made to fit a category. If you donated money to, or bought goods from anyone that they can claim is “material assistance” to some prohibited person/organization, you’re toast.
What are the boundaries of executive privilege?
Should the American people be more concerned with the actions taken by this president? Is our democracy in danger?
Does the Democratic Congress have what it takes to challenge this president and hold firm?
If they don’t, what effects will the increasingly dictatorial powers the president is claiming have on the American people?
QUOTE
Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.
Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.
Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran. Counterpunch
Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.
Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran. Counterpunch
I have always maintained that the Bush administration will find a reason, even if they have to manufacture an event, to nullify term limits and keep Bush in power indefinitely. Nothing in his behavior has indicated that this is out of the realm of possibility. He has already declared himself immune from any kind of accountability to the American people. He has already taken away many of the rights Americans have historically held. This latest is particularly troubling because, though the language is convoluted and confusing as this sort of thing usually is, ANYONE could be made to fit a category. If you donated money to, or bought goods from anyone that they can claim is “material assistance” to some prohibited person/organization, you’re toast.
QUOTE
The first is that this is part of their job description as Congress. If they knuckle under (once again) to Bush, then future Congresses will have a much harder time attempting any meaningful oversight of the Executive Branch ever again. These are Constitutional issues writ large -- where is the check-and-balance line between the two branches? Bush is so obviously flouting the intent of executive privilege that it is Congress' clear duty to oppose him in such efforts. And even if they lose in the Supreme Court, and the balance tips heavily towards the White House -- we, as Americans, need to know that. We need to know the boundaries of what is acceptable by law and what isn't. Because (and here's the kicker) there won't always be a Republican in the White House. And Congress won't always be Democratic. If the shoe were on the other foot, in other words, a Democratic president will be able to point to the "Bush doctrine" on executive privilege, with the Supreme Court to back it up. Huffington Post
What are the boundaries of executive privilege?
Should the American people be more concerned with the actions taken by this president? Is our democracy in danger?
Does the Democratic Congress have what it takes to challenge this president and hold firm?
If they don’t, what effects will the increasingly dictatorial powers the president is claiming have on the American people?
What are the boundaries of executive privilege?
It is a fake power- it is only because congress has allowed it. It would only take backbone from the congress to stop this right in Gdubs tracks. Force a constitutional showdown and it is over- that simple. There is no power enumerated to the president that circumvents the constitution.
Should the American people be more concerned with the actions taken by this president? Is our democracy in danger?
Absolutely- this is worse than ANY terrorist attack to date. There is no greater threat to freedom in the US than the GW admin- unfortunately, it is another "I told you so" that folks get to say to those silly souls that voted for this scumbag. It is unfortunate that those that were so hysterical about Clinton and a BJ can't get worked up to stop this madness.
- I mean really, where are they now?
Does the Democratic Congress have what it takes to challenge this president and hold firm?
If they don’t, what effects will the increasingly dictatorial powers the president is claiming have on the American people?
I am already quite afraid that GW and the republican leadership will not allow a peaceful transfer of power in 08 if congress doesn't put them in check, and soon.
It is a fake power- it is only because congress has allowed it. It would only take backbone from the congress to stop this right in Gdubs tracks. Force a constitutional showdown and it is over- that simple. There is no power enumerated to the president that circumvents the constitution.
Should the American people be more concerned with the actions taken by this president? Is our democracy in danger?
Absolutely- this is worse than ANY terrorist attack to date. There is no greater threat to freedom in the US than the GW admin- unfortunately, it is another "I told you so" that folks get to say to those silly souls that voted for this scumbag. It is unfortunate that those that were so hysterical about Clinton and a BJ can't get worked up to stop this madness.
- I mean really, where are they now? Does the Democratic Congress have what it takes to challenge this president and hold firm?
If they don’t, what effects will the increasingly dictatorial powers the president is claiming have on the American people?
I am already quite afraid that GW and the republican leadership will not allow a peaceful transfer of power in 08 if congress doesn't put them in check, and soon.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jul 20 2007, 11:05 AM) 
I don’t know if anyone noticed or not, but Bush issued another Executive Order that seems to nullify the portion of the 5th Amendment dealing with seizure of private property without due process.
The Executive order does not authorize the seizure of any private property. Try reading it.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 21 2007, 02:24 AM)
The Executive order does not authorize the seizure of any private property. Try reading it.
Taking control of your property is not seizure?
Order is pretty clear- you are enemy of the state- the state "controls" your property. Who gets to determine enemy of the state? GW- that is who. The final statement specifically says you can't seek redress for wrongdoing either.
There is 0 provisions for due proccess as well.
There is 0 provisions for due proccess as well.
What they are doing is "freezing assets", which is a different beast from seizing them. Not saying that I'd like it to happen to me (not that it would matter much at the moment), but the assets do not pass to the Federal gov't. As for due process, I would suggest that y'all read the other EO's referenced, as well as the laws and such also referenced.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 21 2007, 11:33 PM)
What they are doing is "freezing assets", which is a different beast from seizing them. Not saying that I'd like it to happen to me (not that it would matter much at the moment), but the assets do not pass to the Federal gov't.
Just because the assets do not pass to the government does not mean they weren't seized. One can seize control of another person's assets - this, effectively, deprives the individual of that property.
Yes,that would be correct entspeak- if the guv were to simply "seize" BDs land, wouldn't let him sell it, live on it, do anything with it, or even visit it on a siteseeing trip- do you think BD would find any difference between the transfer of owership and "siezing of assets" 
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jul 22 2007, 01:59 PM)
if the guv were to simply "seize" BDs land, wouldn't let him sell it, live on it, do anything with it, or even visit it on a siteseeing trip- do you think BD would find any difference between the transfer of owership and "siezing of assets"
No. There is no effective difference.
For those who are being deliberately obtuse, here's the difference:
"Freezing" assets means you can't transfer them, sell them, withdraw them, etc. If your bank account is frozen, it means you can't withdraw your money until its released. It is still your money. The gov't doesn't get to spend it.
When they seize your assets, then they can transfer, sell, spend, etc, your assets.
"Freezing" assets means you can't transfer them, sell them, withdraw them, etc. If your bank account is frozen, it means you can't withdraw your money until its released. It is still your money. The gov't doesn't get to spend it.
When they seize your assets, then they can transfer, sell, spend, etc, your assets.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.