Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts

[Liability]

I am serious. I am no fan of the incumbent.

But shouldn't the criticisms of him relate to some things which he has actually done wrong?

What exactly is "wrong" with that EO?

 

[Intense]

Kinda reminds me of George washington gathering militia to enforce the whiskey tax in PA.

Another Hamilton Scheme to defraud and tax unfairly, picking winners and losers, eliminating the competition. How special. The Grand Dad of Today's Statist Progressives.

 

[Intense]

I am serious. I am no fan of the incumbent.

But shouldn't the criticisms of him relate to some things which he has actually done wrong?

What exactly is "wrong" with that EO?

Consider not the actual list, but how names end up on it. Due Process?

Habeas corpus is a writ that is used to bring a party who has been criminally convicted in state court into federal court. Usually, writs of habeas corpus are used to review the legality of the party’s arrest, imprisonment, or detention. The federal court’s review of a habeas corpus petition is considered to be collateral relief of a state court decision rather than direct review.

Habeas corpus originated in English common law as a means to protect individuals from illegal detention. An individual who had been held in custody could file a petition seeking a writ which would require the custodian to provide adequate legal justification for the detention. If the custodian failed to do so, the court could order the petitioner’s release.

Habeas corpus | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Liability]

I am serious. I am no fan of the incumbent.

But shouldn't the criticisms of him relate to some things which he has actually done wrong?

What exactly is "wrong" with that EO?

Consider not the actual list, but how names end up on it. Due Process?

Habeas corpus is a writ that is used to bring a party who has been criminally convicted in state court into federal court. Usually, writs of habeas corpus are used to review the legality of the party’s arrest, imprisonment, or detention. The federal court’s review of a habeas corpus petition is considered to be collateral relief of a state court decision rather than direct review.

Habeas corpus originated in English common law as a means to protect individuals from illegal detention. An individual who had been held in custody could file a petition seeking a writ which would require the custodian to provide adequate legal justification for the detention. If the custodian failed to do so, the court could order the petitioner’s release.

Habeas corpus | LII / Legal Information Institute

I am not terribly concerned with HOW the names get on the list. The process is either solid or flawed. The names belong on the list or they don't. It affects anybody whose name ends up on the list. But those folks GET to go to Court.

Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with it. This isn't a criminal matter at all. But still, the folks named DO get to challenge the determination and actions of the government.

Due process requires little more.

 

[emptystep]

Didn't you swear an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution? When you gonna' start doin' that?

Iran is not covered in our constitution.

The original bill to cover these sanctions sailed through congress, yet he feels it's his "right" to do as he pleases.

What bill would that be?

 

[emptystep]

Didn't you swear an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution? When you gonna' start doin' that?

Constitution fundamentalist.

Grow up.

No!

 

[daveman]

Didn't you swear an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution? When you gonna' start doin' that?

Constitution fundamentalist.

Grow up.

Impossible. He thinks (I know, I'm being generous) "Constitution fundamentalist" is an insult.

 

[emptystep]

Constitution fundamentalist.

Grow up.

Impossible. He thinks (I know, I'm being generous) "Constitution fundamentalist" is an insult.

Impossible? Perhaps. I think fundamentalism in any form is a little on the naive side.

And with that:

 

[daveman]

Grow up.

Impossible. He thinks (I know, I'm being generous) "Constitution fundamentalist" is an insult.

Impossible? Perhaps. I think fundamentalism in any form is a little on the naive side.

And with that:

Let me guess: You think the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" subject to the liberal whims of the moment, not requiring the Amendment process for change, but just "interpretation" from the bench.

Amirite?

 

[kaz]

Well, I believe businesses should not be allowed to fuck people over in their pursuit of profits

Right, that's a job you reserve for politicians

Nothing for the rest of my post?

That covered the rest of your post. Your post was about your blind love of government and how their removing choice will protect us because government will make the right choices for us and you're not interested in that if a company doesn't treat you right, you're free to drag your lazy ass across the street to their competitor. As long as you get the same crappy government service everyone else is stuck with you're fine. The ability to get good service that you have to work for, you're not interested in because its, work. But you're too envious of anyone else getting it just because they deserve it, so government has to stop that. Seriously, if you actually read this post, it will change your life.

 

[kaz]

And "conservatives" must not fundamentally understand the Constitution or how our government works.

He did not bypass Congress. EO's are not un-Constitutional. This is no conspiracy.

Just because y'all are scratching for some reason to find fault with Obama does not make your ridiculous charges true.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. And EO's are not Unconstitutional themselves, but you can't do anything with them that is unconstitutional and there is no Constitutional authority for seizing bank accounts without due process.

Though you did answer my question in another post where I said the left would rationalize Obama shooting a group of nuns ... it was an Executive Order ...

Sorry EO's are subject to Constitutionality. And not just when your guy is behind the steering wheel. You're just engaging in partisan bickering. You're like the Republicans. When the Constitution serves you, it's a sledge hammer and when it doesn't it's toilet paper. I support it all the time, being a republic to me is far more important then getting the Federal Government to decree what I want on any transactional issue.

I do hope you realize that Congress gave the President the authority to do what he did. And, they've given similar authority to every President since Bill Clinton.

I know you're talking about "due process" in the legal sense, but Congress allocating powers to the President is "due process" in the Constitutional sense.

This doesn't contradict what I said, did you actually read my post?

So in your view, Obama is actually a dictator. He is not bound by the Constitution when he issues an EO. The government on his order can take people's property, in direct violation of the fifth amendment, without due process.

So if the President isn't bound by the Constitution in issuing executive orders, why can't he just issue an EO that the media can't criticize him? You rejected the fifth amendment as being a protection under an EO. Why can't the President order his political opponents be rounded up and put in prison? Again, you said in EO's the fifth amendment is out.

Seriously, you think Obama is an absolute dictator. You deserve whatever you get.

 

[kaz]

I have seen nothing in the laws referenced or in the Executive Order which would deny to a person, who is affected by the Executive Order, the right to seek judicial intervention

Due process means that you can only be deprived of life, liberty or property AFTER due process, it doesn't mean that the government can take it and THEN you get due process.

 

[Liability]

I have seen nothing in the laws referenced or in the Executive Order which would deny to a person, who is affected by the Executive Order, the right to seek judicial intervention

Due process means that you can only be deprived of life, liberty or property AFTER due process, it doesn't mean that the government can take it and THEN you get due process.

Wrong.

Due process means the process to which you are due.

If there are laws prohibiting certain financial dealings with Iran, and the government ascertains that you are engaged in such dealings anyway, they can freeze those assets. YOU can then be heard in COURT to challenge the determination and get your assets unfrozen. There is no "taking" going on. Just enforcement of a prohibition.

It's akin to a scenario where a police officer thinks you've been driving your car too fast, or doing so drunk, he doesn't go to court first to obtain authority to stop you. He stops you first and then you go to court.

 

[kaz]

I have seen nothing in the laws referenced or in the Executive Order which would deny to a person, who is affected by the Executive Order, the right to seek judicial intervention

Due process means that you can only be deprived of life, liberty or property AFTER due process, it doesn't mean that the government can take it and THEN you get due process.

Wrong.

Due process means the process to which you are due.

If there are laws prohibiting certain financial dealings with Iran, and the government ascertains that you are engaged in such dealings anyway, they can freeze those assets. YOU can then be heard in COURT to challenge the determination and get your assets unfrozen. There is no "taking" going on. Just enforcement of a prohibition.

It's akin to a scenario where a police officer thinks you've been driving your car too fast, or doing so drunk, he doesn't go to court first to obtain authority to stop you. He stops you first and then you go to court.

Do you not see the OBVIOUS difference in your scenarios?

In the first one, the government just freezes your assets and you have to sue them, the onus is on you.

In the second, the government can only briefly detain you, then THEY Have to take you in front of a judge and make the case as to why you should be in jail.

The first one involved no checks and balances, the second does. The second is how a free country works, the first is clearly not. Our whole government is designed around the onus being on GOVERNMENT. You're willing to just take it away with a wave of the hand. You should be on the Supreme Court.

 

[emptystep]

Impossible. He thinks (I know, I'm being generous) "Constitution fundamentalist" is an insult.

Impossible? Perhaps. I think fundamentalism in any form is a little on the naive side.

And with that:

Let me guess: You think the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" subject to the liberal whims of the moment, not requiring the Amendment process for change, but just "interpretation" from the bench.

Amirite?

I assume you are aware that the Constitution of the United States of America is a ten page document, in 12pt font, eight pages if you don't include the list of founding fathers at the end,
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text.

Those just might have been the most brilliant eight pages ever written but I don't think it is enough to run our modern society.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have seen nothing in the laws referenced or in the Executive Order which would deny to a person, who is affected by the Executive Order, the right to seek judicial intervention

Due process means that you can only be deprived of life, liberty or property AFTER due process, it doesn't mean that the government can take it and THEN you get due process.

Wrong.

Due process means the process to which you are due.

If there are laws prohibiting certain financial dealings with Iran, and the government ascertains that you are engaged in such dealings anyway, they can freeze those assets. YOU can then be heard in COURT to challenge the determination and get your assets unfrozen. There is no "taking" going on. Just enforcement of a prohibition.

It's akin to a scenario where a police officer thinks you've been driving your car too fast, or doing so drunk, he doesn't go to court first to obtain authority to stop you. He stops you first and then you go to court.

It's really not like that at all since if an officer stops you the detention is too brief to violate due process and you can be stopped, but not detained, on observation of committing a crime i.e. the officer saw you speeding, or suspicion having committed a crime, i.e. a car reportedly that looks like yours was seen leaving the scene of a bank robbery.

It's actually closer to civil forfeiture where the officer seizes your car because it is such a nice car it must have been bought with drug money proceeds. Then the car is seized and you have to prove it was purchased with your own money.

 

[Oldguy]

Due process means that you can only be deprived of life, liberty or property AFTER due process, it doesn't mean that the government can take it and THEN you get due process.

Wanna bet? If stopped for speeding and the cop determines certain things meet the criteria of you being a drug dealer, you can be arrested and your property seized. And, I mean all of it...your cars, bank accounts, boats, personal possessions. Then, the arresting agency can sell every bit of it BEFORE YOU EVEN COME TO TRIAL AND BEFORE YOU ARE CONVICTED.

You get your "due process" AFTER you've been found innocent of the charges when you can sue for the VALUE of your stuff. Not the stuff itself as that's already gone, but just the value of it.

 

[PaulS1950]

What the police get away with and what is lawful are two very different things.
The Republic is disappearing from apathy and ignorance.
The price of freedom is constant vililance - and we, as a people, fell asleep on watch.

It is time to Take It Back!

 

[Intense]

Grow up.

Impossible. He thinks (I know, I'm being generous) "Constitution fundamentalist" is an insult.

Impossible? Perhaps. I think fundamentalism in any form is a little on the naive side.

And with that:

I bet you can't even follow a recipe.

 

[g5000]

well how special, I guess you BETTER HOPE you aren't declared a "sanctioned person" by the dear leader or his Comrades in Arms administration..

I'm not planning on buying any oil from, or selling centrifuges to, Iran, so...

.