RIP US Constitution 1791-2007

[inthemiddle]

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

George Bush signed this Executive Privlidge thing on July 17, 2007. Why are we not discussing this? This has to be a gross infrigement on our right, and it scares the hell out of me.

Posted right on the whitehouse website. What does this mean for our rights?!?!



Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq



White House News


Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) 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.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

[inthemiddle]

so now the governemnt can seize property, if you are found to be guilty of

B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

If this is the case, one could ague that merely swaying public opinion/ not promoting economic recunstruction is not againt the law, and violating it could result in imprisonment.

So if the liberals are demanding retreat from Iraq, are they not in violation of this law?

Also if I do business with someone who is found to be supporting this behaivior, I am now held liable??

am i reading to much into this, or missing something here?

[Kamehameha34]

I agree with you wholeheartedly in your opposition to this.

Be wary, though, you're bound to get some socialist in here telling you that it's "due process"

[sdbest]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I agree with you wholeheartedly in your opposition to this. Be wary, though, you're bound to get some socialist in here telling you that it's "due process"

Well. Kam, it is due process. The problem is that you've never understood that just because something is "due process" doesn't make it right and just, only legal. The Law and Justice are two different things, and you just don't seem to be able to separate the two or understand that fact. 1930s, 1940s German due process sent Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals to concentration camps during Hitlers rule.

At any rate, your country's becoming a police state or a dictatorship and the question is what do you plan to do about it, if anything, apart from whine about socialists?

Regards
S.

[sdbest]

Quote by: inthemiddle s So if the liberals are demanding retreat from Iraq, are they not in violation of this law? Also if I do business with someone who is found to be supporting this behaivior, I am now held liable??

Welcome to Amerikkka.

Regards
S.

[christibe]

What's the problem? Another decree by the King. What is so bad about that?

Oh... he's not a real king?

ohhh... that is bad then...

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons

Even the title is unconstitutional...

All the crappy Dems have to do is remove from their decisions the permission to be at war right now with, effectively, everyone, at the Commander in Chief's fancy, though, and all of his decrees will be void.....

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

2(b) is what begins to say that anyone can an enemy combatant, and that all citizens are immediately suspect and therefore can have their property 'blocked.' A transaction does not have to mean money, and 'materially' as stated though I've not quoted, is an appropriately vague choice. A transaction is really any action taken that can be considered by the provisions set forth herein in violation of the order.

But:

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Says that all will, can and should be taken, and in the middle of the night or in broad daylight no less, while on American soil, because as in his reading of the FISA court allowance, this is too important to follow due process, as in discovery and the presumption of innocence. One Executive Order at a time this man has voided the Constitution.

But, I realize that this also gives permission to seize the property of Iraqi nationals, immediately, as well as the Iraqi government's property, by extension of this Section subsequent to Sec. 1(i)(A) (geez, they didn't even hide it this time... first freaking section)

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq;

because of the Iraqi govt. declaring they do not need or want us there anymore. Perhaps this is a direct response to that? Is this his way of taking back what he so graciously gave them?

Finally,

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

Not only prohibits oversight by our allies in this war in Iraq, but also disallows us as citizens to take issue with the order, and the Iraqi Government and Iraqi nationals cannot take us to court if and when it is decided that their property is seized. Unfortunately, I thought something like this was already "on the books" in the repertoire, there have been so many. But wait further, aren't we just blowing their property up anyway? Explosions, the new form of government seizure.

Oh hey, fun side-thought:
I wonder if this will apply to American church property, as in the UCC? I know the one I'm trying to go to, though I always have to work on Sunday (though I haven't been to church in over a decade), publicly opposes the war and spends money doing so. This could be included it seems as an entity that engages in acts that seek to inhibit the government from its interests in Iraq. Man, that'll make for one fine news day...

Extra Extra! United States Government goes the way of the Frenchies by seizing church property.

christina-

[Clarence]

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order: (a) the term "person" means an individual or entity; (b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

InTheMiddle you are a part of the 'entity' Volconvo..

for real though. Did you just start paying attention? This kinda stuff's been zipping by for at least...as long as I've been paying attention. Good notice, sir.

[christibe]

Hmm, by extension perhaps it might be found in violation of this Executive Order that some mosques have connections to Iraqi nationals who's property were seized, or I mean blocked, by this order.

What I especially love is that there is no mention of how any of this will occur- usually you cannot in law just make blanket statements, and he only relies on other Executive decrees and an international emerg. act, and of course the Act of Congress that gives him this power to create Law from nothing. At least a slight nod to following precedent I guess. It really does say that if any person as established is in violation they are immediately blocked... it just doesn't make any sense in practice. What court is going to be used? You have to file this somewhere, even the Government, so what do the secretaries in the Justice Dept., US Attorney's office and Congress just form a new magical file in their cabinets that the God's of Executive Orders? What is the enforcement mechanism? Is he to follow Executive Order

Feb. 14 Executive Order Trial of Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants by Military Commission

or maybe just use our new friend as established in

Jun. 29 Executive Order: Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 with Respect to Turkmenistan

(also found on Executive Orders Issued by President George W. Bush)


Remember when these were used to keep the Administration's administration in line? It was like, an employee handbook. Ok, on a bigger scale, but for real... It's not supposed to be used like this.

[Ken Carman]

This week's deadline for my column; Inspection, didn't serve me well regarding this atrocity, and yet again another attempt to turn "President" into "dictator."

However, just before I digitally flew over to this domain I posted my own comment HERE.

Funny how these things seem to coincide. I just publish my latest edition of something, or some comment, and Volconvo is already there. Guess that's one of the reasons I keep coming back.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: sdbest Well. Kam, it is due process. The problem is that you've never understood that just because something is "due process" doesn't make it right and just, only legal. The Law and Justice are two different things, and you just don't seem to be able to separate the two or understand that fact. 1930s, 1940s German due process sent Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals to concentration camps during Hitlers rule. At any rate, your country's becoming a police state or a dictatorship and the question is what do you plan to do about it, if anything, apart from whine about socialists? Regards S.

Are you claiming that, by executive order, any president can disregard or even eliminate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?:eek: :rolleyes:I don't mean in the sense of "allowed to," where the courts and politicians let it slide and therefore allow it to stand. I mean legally, rightfully and according to the very documents our forefathers wrote to establish this nation. I think there would be a lot of posters challenging that assumption.

[Ken Carman]

What's the problem? Another decree by the King. What is so bad about that? Oh... he's not a real king? ohhh... that is bad then...

Love the turn around and the wit. Thank you for making me laugh while being pissed off at the same time.

[Osborn F Enready]

inthemiddle, you have the "death date" wrong for the Constitution. It died with the First Executive Order under Lincoln, and was further beaten like a dead horse after death by the War and Emergency Powers Act, the Federal Reserve Act and the littany of violations since.

Nice of you to finally notice though, welcome to the club, and the police state.

[Praxius]

So how much more proof is needed that you guys are lead by a Tyrant?

Want an easy solution to counter this stupid thing he just made?

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

Among many other things in that list above.....

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't he the #1 threat to the stability and peace of Iraq? Isn't he the one who started it all in the first place?

Then didn't he just make a bill that actually could be used against him and remove his sorry ass out of power by his own hand?

Besides the fact that this idiotic BS plan he just made would single handedly screw you guys over of any kind of a label of Democracy, I would suggest someone take the first step and put this law right onto him and remove his ass before he does anymore stupid things..... but of course I've already said that countless times before...... how many more infrngements must he make on your rights, before you guys see what the hell he's doing?

My God..... and I don't believe in God.... but if he existed, he should have dropped one of those tornados right down on his ranch and his nubby little head instead of all those other people who lost their homes.

hell, I know I'd be promoting more to do to that twit, if it wouldn't cause an international incident of me getting transfered to the US for threatening the life of the president (Heaven forbid) and the forum being shut down by the tyrants..... but I'd hate to bring something like that here.... so I'll wait until the most fortunate thing happens to that idiot, and then I'll express how I truly feel about him.

[billybobama]

Quote by: sdbest Well. Kam, it is due process. The problem is that you've never understood that just because something is "due process" doesn't make it right and just, only legal. The Law and Justice are two different things, and you just don't seem to be able to separate the two or understand that fact. 1930s, 1940s German due process sent Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals to concentration camps during Hitlers rule. At any rate, your country's becoming a police state or a dictatorship and the question is what do you plan to do about it, if anything, apart from whine about socialists? Regards S.

Very good and insightful post.