Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts

[tjvh]

This thread is really funny... I'm certain I've heard some of those who support this EO whining about how they despise the Patriot Act before. Make up your minds with regards to handing away your Freedoms, would you please?

 

[Conservative]

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts
The New America ^ | 10/12/12 | Bob Adelmann

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans? Bank Accounts

The latest executive order (EO) emanating from the White House October 9 now claims the power to freeze all bank accounts and stop any related financial transactions that a “sanctioned person” may own or try to perform — all in the name of “Iran Sanctions.”

Titled an “Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions…” the order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a “sanctioned person,” he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization” that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.

And if the individual so “sanctioned” decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn't allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.

But it’s all very legal. The EO says the president has his “vested authority” to issue it, and then references endless previous EOs, including one dating back to 1995 which declared a “state of emergency” (which hasn’t been lifted): Executive Order 12957.

EO 12957 was issued by President Bill Clinton on March 15, 1995, which was also obliquely related to the Iran “problem”:

I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of the Government of Iran to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security

I suppose a link to the EO in question would be too much to ask?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Hence the reason there is an amendment process.

 

[Liability]

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts
The New America ^ | 10/12/12 | Bob Adelmann

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans? Bank Accounts

The latest executive order (EO) emanating from the White House October 9 now claims the power to freeze all bank accounts and stop any related financial transactions that a “sanctioned person” may own or try to perform — all in the name of “Iran Sanctions.”

Titled an “Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions…” the order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a “sanctioned person,” he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization” that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.

And if the individual so “sanctioned” decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn't allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.

But it’s all very legal. The EO says the president has his “vested authority” to issue it, and then references endless previous EOs, including one dating back to 1995 which declared a “state of emergency” (which hasn’t been lifted): Executive Order 12957.

EO 12957 was issued by President Bill Clinton on March 15, 1995, which was also obliquely related to the Iran “problem”:

I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of the Government of Iran to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security

I suppose a link to the EO in question would be too much to ask?

I linked one of the laws referenced in the Exec Order.

Here's a link to the EO in question. Hyperlink: > 1,461 Days of The Obama Administration: Executive Order: Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions with respect to Iran

 

[kaz]

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.

Um...did you mean to quote me? This is the same scenario I'm arguing against.

 

[Liberal]

SO this is a thread complaining about the sanctions on Iran and blocking funding within this country?

You would complain too if he was doing nothing about Iran... Right?

 

[kaz]

SO this is a thread complaining about the sanctions on Iran and blocking funding within this country?

You would complain too if he was doing nothing about Iran... Right?

We either accept doing something about Iran ignoring the Constitution or we shut the fuck up. Got it.

 

[Liberal]

SO this is a thread complaining about the sanctions on Iran and blocking funding within this country?

You would complain too if he was doing nothing about Iran... Right?

We either accept doing something about Iran ignoring the Constitution or we shut the fuck up. Got it.

Well... As annoying as you guys can be dissent is essential to the evolution of government.

When we enter this realm of dealing with funding within our country the actions can be interpreted as ambiguous, doesn't mean that it's automatically the worst scenario.

 

[paulitician]

Nice try, but i'm sure the dumbed-down sheeple don't care. It's all about Big Bird.

 

[Liability]

Nobody has (yet) made a good case that the EO is Constitutionally defective.

 

[jillian]

Nobody has (yet) made a good case that the EO is Constitutionally defective.

because it's not...

one really shouldn't confuse randian morons with the constitution.

 

[paulitician]

Rule by Decree. What a sad mess our Nation has become. Is there any hope it will be rescued?

 

[g5000]

Jesus, there are some dumb fucks on this board.

Read the EO, morons. He is exercising the sanctions called for in Congressional legislation which is cited EXTENSIVELY in the EO.

All your hype about the Constitution being violated is about the dumbest shit I have seen.



.

 

[g5000]

Congress passes a law which bans the sale of, say, centrifuges to Iran for their nuclear enrichment program.

Laws are enforced by the executive branch, and so Obama issues an order to enforce the laws passed by Congress, citing those laws at length in his order.

Then along comes the dumbshit squad on USMB screaming some stupid shit about the order violating the Constitution. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Christ, you guys just reveal how clueless you really are about the Constitution, don't you know that?


.

 

[jillian]

Rule by Decree. What a sad mess our Nation has become. Is there any hope it will be rescued?

yes...it's all a conspiracy to keep ron paul from being president.

jaysus

 

[Liability]

Nobody has (yet) made a good case that the EO is Constitutionally defective.

because it's not...

one really shouldn't confuse randian morons with the constitution.

It is, of course, possible that there could be (maybe) something(s) in the underlying laws or in the President's issued Executive Order which violate the Constitution.

But although it's possible, it has not been identified. And frankly, having taken the time to read the Iran and Syria sanctions act (albeit not all of the other referenced underlying laws) and the President's EO, I don't see any Constitutional violation on the face of them.

And I would enjoy tweaking the libs about the President trammeling the Constitutional rights of anybody if I could. Yet, even so, I just don't see it.

 

[hazlnut]

Yep, the Iran sanctions are tough. Thank you, Mr. President. Beats the hell out of invading Iran.

It's funny how we're seeing the Cons are really pussies when it comes to foreign policy. They like to bark big threats like war or 'hunting down killers' but only President Obama has been able to due what W. failed to do.

 

[Liability]

Yep, the Iran sanctions are tough. Thank you, Mr. President. Beats the hell out of invading Iran.

It's funny how we're seeing the Cons are really pussies when it comes to foreign policy. They like to bark big threats like war or 'hunting down killers' but only President Obama has been able to due what W. failed to do.

No. He didn't.

He authorized the action, though, for which he gets some props. But the SEALS did the heavy lifting.

And Pres. Obama USED the tools provided BY W (tools which Pres. Obama nevertheless denigrated) to GET the intel to finally land that piece of shit Osama. He should publicly THANK W. He won't of course, since that would require honesty and integrity and decency. This President lacks those attributes.

And still, as I advised you mindless simpleton libs way back when: getting Osama -- though highly desirable -- would NOT, alone, suffice to take down al qaeda.

IF only the dip shit infesting the Oval Office had been capable of grasping that, MAYBE he wouldn't have FAILED so spectacularly in protecting OUR embassy in Benghazi.

 

[Conservative]

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts
The New America ^ | 10/12/12 | Bob Adelmann

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans? Bank Accounts

I suppose a link to the EO in question would be too much to ask?

I linked one of the laws referenced in the Exec Order.

Here's a link to the EO in question. Hyperlink: > 1,461 Days of The Obama Administration: Executive Order: Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions with respect to Iran

Section 1. (a) When the President, or the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, has determined that sanctions shall be imposed on a person pursuant to ISA, CISADA, or ITRSHRA and has, in accordance with those authorities, selected one or more of the sanctions set forth in section 6 of ISA to impose on that person,

sounds to me like there is a specific set of circumstances that must be in play for a person to be named 'sanctioned'... and that not every Tom, Dick, or Harriet needs to worry.

 

[Conservative]

IF only the dip shit infesting the Oval Office had been capable of grasping that, MAYBE he wouldn't have FAILED so spectacularly in protecting OUR embassy in Benghazi.

shhhhhhhh... the libtards say we're not allowed to talk about that, because it is politically motivated speech.