EO Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption

There appear to be so many things wrong with this it's hard to know where to start.

First of all, the only legal/constitutional justification for an EO is pursuant to and in enforcement of congressional legislation or a direct constitutional mandate being ignored by Congress (ex. Trump's EO against invasion of illegals and enemies was valid because federal protection against invasion is mandated in Art.IV, Sec 4 of the Constitution).

"National Emergency"

In 1976, in US v Bishop, the United States Court of Appeals, 19th Circuit, noted that on four occasions a national emergency had been invoked by the American President: 1933, 1950, 1970 and 1971. None had ever been revoked.

In 1976, a new National Emergencies Act ended all previous proclamations although not before the Court wrote:

"A national emergency must be based on conditions beyond the ordinary. Otherwise, it has no meaning. The power of the Soviet Union in world affairs does not justify placing the United States in a constant state of national emergency."

The United States Code (Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter I, §5122), now defines emergency and major disaster as follows:

"Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/NationalEmergency.aspx

Declaring "national emergencies" is how tyrants gain power. It should be used sparingly and carefully. What "conditions beyond the ordinary" do we have here? What "threat of a catastrophe" do we have here? Why is there nothing said about how this "national emergency" will be declared revoked?

These EO's are an unfortunate extension of Obama's EO's which he used extensively to consolidate legislative power unconstitutionally into the executive branch in an attempt to obtain and exercise quasi-dictatorial power. Just because it is Trump doesn't make it right.

So this appears to be doing the wrong thing if it is an unconstitutional act of a federal official - the President. If it is the wrong thing, then we need not go further. If it is somehow constitutionally justified, what about its contents?

Content of the EO

serious human rights abuse

Definition? Where does the Constitution give the feds authority over this undefined area and why is it a condition beyond the ordinary that threatens a catastrophe?

corruption

Definition? Constitutional impeachable offenses are listed here: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (U.S. Const, art. II, sec. 4.) "The House of Representatives [NOT the President]...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (id., art. I, sec. 2, cl 5.). Why is undefined "corruption" a condition beyond the ordinary that threatens a catastrophe?

misappropriation of state assets

The feds have no delegated constitutional authority over the handling of a state's assets. Misappropriation of state assets is not a condition beyond the ordinary that threatens a catastrophe. So how should we deal with the various "Foundations" that fund anti-american activities? The Clinton Foundation? George Soro's various foundations?

Well, when it comes to federal acts whose validity and power is derived ONLY from the Constitution, the first question is ALWAYS: "What does the Constitution say"? The only actionable "anti-american activity" delegated to the feds is treason, defined here in the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

U.S. Const, art. III, sec. 3, cl. 1.

Domestic "anti-american activities" (treason) are to be dealt with in our court system, not through the dictates of the EO's of presidential overreach.

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.