Posted on 07/19/2007 1:17:36 PM PDT by Rodney King
” I do know that it was done by people a hellofa lot smarter than me.”
You don’t actually know anyone in government, do you?
However, as I read the order, it is not freezing bank accounts. It is prohibiting banks from allowing the transfer of funds to specific organizations.
It is an asset freeze (not just bank accounts) without due process.
I also find this part interesting:
"The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person."
There are no words about scienter anywhere in that entire section. It therefore appears that you can be one of these "Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization in Iraq" just for having received a contribution of funds, even if you accept funds without knowing their source is one of these persons in section (a)(i).
It may be poor drafting, but I doubt it was accidental. By wording it without "knowingly" or "intentionally", or even "should have known", it gives "the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense" complete discretion in determining who to go after.
Well, then...I guess certain "persons" will be more careful about the donations they receive. Claiming, "gosh, I didn't know that 700K in my bank account came from Hamas supporters just isn't going to cut it anymore.
Boiled down to its simplest, this EO permits taking “[A]ll property and interests in property...,” which “may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in...” This applies to, “[A]any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense..” to have committed enumerated offenses, all of which are narrowly taylored to fall within the war effort, i.e., “threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,” etc., etc.
This is in tension with the 5th Amendment guarantee of “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
The process provided for by judicial branch is not the only means to satisfy substantive due process. If it were, we would never have anything like Article 3 Courts like the bankruptcy court, which exist solely withing the executive branch.
When dealing with the question in a substantive due process claim, the primary question is what process is due? The power of the President to wage war is decidedly broad - if it weren’t we would end up losing whenever we fought. We are entitled to have a powerful executive wield power based upon secure information. So here, the determination, i.e. the legal process, is a decision made by 3 Cabinet level departments of the executive. This is a substantial showing of some sort of legal process must be employed, before private property can be taken.
If you don’t like it, defund the war, and the power goes away. Or elect an executive who will chose not to wield power in this manner. Or how about this - grind the enemey into dust through every means you have at your disposal - that means “Win the War” - and the power goes away.
This is totally constitutional IMHO and I unreservedly support this Executive Order. There is no doubt this is working in concert with the surge. We have information about who is funding the destabilizing elements where our soldiers are fighting and dying. This EO makes it clear that the money flow will stop. So the risk premium on in an investment to sieze political power in Iraq just went up a couple of points. I am pretty sure Ahmadinejad has had to recount the contents of his war chest. And that’s a good thing.
see previous post.
Courts in Equity have long had the power to impress an equitable trust upon a res where the holder has no knowledge of wrongdoing.
You are impressive! But I knew that. Thank you so much!
Ellison and Obama and others must be shaking in their boots. Cynthia McKinney too if she had the sense God gave a goose.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
We have had recent occasion to consider a claim that the use of classified information disclosed only to the court ex parte and in camera in the designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the AEDPA was violative of due process. In rejecting that claim, we recalled that “[t]he due process clause requires only that process which is due under the circumstances of the case.” People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 327 F.3d 1238, 1242 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). We further held that the standard set forth in NCOR applies not only to the notice provisions governing classification but to the full process of classification and that therefore “due process required the disclosure of only the unclassified portions of the administrative record.” Id. at 1242 (emphasis in original). Again, we emphasized the primacy of the Executive in controlling and exercising responsibility over access to classified information, and the Executive’s “ ‘compelling interest’ in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business.” Id. at 1242 (citations omitted).
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v. Ashcroft 333 F.3d 156, *164, 357 U.S.App.D.C. 35, **43 (C.A.D.C.,2003)
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I just now saw this myself. I’m by no means a legal person. Basically, what in the hell does all of this mean?
On its face it appears to be some type of power grab.
I’m all for seizing the assets of people who aid terrorists....
But to me, this appears to be a blatant transgression of the protections provided by the fifth amendment.
This, IMO, borders on impeachable offense.
I just saw it myself...
I am still trying to figure out how the he** anyone can consider this constitutional.
Do executive orders even need to be constitutional? Not that the constitution means anything to George W Bush, but aren't Executive Orders free from Congressional over site and Judicial review?
Rulers prefer more power to less, but in a liberal democracy the rulers are constrained by institutions that sustain private rights.1 Specifically, private property rights place the power of resource allocation in the hands of private citizens, thereby limiting the capacity of governmental officials to shape the economy. Governmental officials have interests of their own, which are not necessarily representative of or even in harmony with the interests of people outside government. Therefore, the rulers and the ruled normally struggle in various ways to determine who will control the use of resources. The greater the scope of private property rights, the more limited is the capacity of the rulers to achieve the ends they prefer at the expense of those preferred by the citizenry.
For several reasons, rights taken over by governmental officials during an emergency are unlikely to revert fully to their previous holders when normal times return.
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=124
One more excerpt:
After vacillating during 1934–36, sometimes sustaining and sometimes striking down the government’s unprecedented derogations from private property rights, the Court caved in completely in 1937. Since then it has maintained that virtually any state or federal governmental interference with private property rights is constitutional. Only a law that is manifestly arbitrary and lacking any imaginable relation to a public purpose will be disallowed. In a bloodless revolution, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned constitutional protections of private property rights that had existed for 150 years.3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.