Slashdot Mirror
Executive Order Overturns US Fifth Amendment
RalphTWaP writes "Tuesday, there wasn't even a fuss. Wednesday, the world was a little different. By executive order, the Secretary of the Treasury may now seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact." There hasn't been much media notice of this; the UK's Guardian has an article explaining how the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists.
That whooshing sound you just heard go by your ears was another chunk of personal rights flying out the window.
This is flamebait.
Here's the short version with a lot of legalese stripped out:
Yes, there is a bunch of other stuff in there, but I don't see anything stopping the Secretary of the Treasury from using this for political purposes. If you go to an anti-war demonstration, you just might be undermining efforts to promote political reform in Iraq (as defined by the Bush administration).
Just for the sake of argument, let's say that you're a die-hard Republican George Bush fan, and you honestly think that this would never be used for such blatant political purposes. Would you say the same thing about Hillary Clinton, who stands a very good chance of being elected in 2008? Because guess what. She's going to have the same powers when she takes office.
People who support the creation of this kind of crap based on their trust of the Guy (or Gal) In Charge right now, whether that person is a Democrat, Republican, or whatever, are idiots. You should never ask yourself what something like this will be used for, you should ask yourself what it can be used for, and then imagine that the politician you hate the most holding the reigns. Then, and only then, can you decide whether a law, executive order, or whatever is good or bad.
Sounds like we should seize a certain ranch in Crawford, Texas if we're going after people who are "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" (Section 4.1.a of the order)
"The new authority will only be used to go after terrorists..."
Uh-huh. And the FBI isn't going to spy on ordinary Americans.
Where's the outrage?
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists.
Ofcourse, who is and who isn't a terrorist will be determined by the Secretary in secret after the fact.
Aw crap, ninjas!
"...the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists."
Right, until they redefine "terrorist." Or change the rules. Or just break the rules they have, and then label anyone who calls them out on it as "un-American." This sucks; Something's gotta give eventually, right?
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
Sad to say.
The root password on the U. S. Constitution is "The Global War on $SUBJECT"
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The language is a bit vague, but calling this a defeat of the Fifth Amendment is overly hyperbolic.
Let's calm down a bit, eh?
And why is it that half the articles KDawson approves are either overly liberal, or show some sort of political bone picking? I'm not saying I'm liberal or conservative - I'm Social Democrat - but this seems like it's pandering to liberal scaremongers. "The Republicans hate your freedom!"
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The part you quote is just the preamble and carries no legal weight.
The summary is mistaken, yes (though not dishonest). The actual situation is far worse than Slashdot's summary describes.
The actual language refers to persons who "have committed, or... pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of" undermining etc.
In other words, you do not have to do anything to be affected by this law. All the Secretary has to assert is that you were probably going to do something that had a bad effect.
Whether you had the intention to undermine Iraqi reconstruction is irrelevant. Whether you actually did anything is irrelevant.
This isn't just overturning the 5th Amendment, it's erasing it and replacing it with thoughtcrime.
The US Government has been freezing the assets of those it determines to be "bad guys" for a long long time now, well before GWB was a twinkle in his mother eye. If this violates the 5th ammendment then we have been doing so for many decades.
The original and unabridged order is linked in the summary, go read it. The problem with relying on the Secretaries of Defense and State to serve as checks and balances with this is that all three of those officials are Executive Branch people who serve at the pleasure of the President. If the President orders this for a particular person, chances are good that all three of these people will rubber-stamp it. You cannot have true checks and balances existing entirely within one branch of the government.
I hate to say it but what did you expect?
Allow a government to get away with as much shit as this current Bush administration has been allowed to, from Guantanamo Bay onwards, and this is what you get.
I guarantee you that if people had kicked up more of a fuss about the rights of POWs (they're POWs, denying that they're POWs and calling them detainees is just an easy way to avoid giving them basic rights) at Gitmo then you wouldn't be seeing stuff like this today.
Right now, the winners in the "War on Terror" are Al Qaeda (they have what they wanted: open conflict with the West) and oil companies. The losers are average citizens, not just in the West but in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, the occupied territories, etc.
It's not too late to change things. But it probably is too late to leave it to others and just hope for the best. Get out the pen, get out the paper and write to your representatives. It's your government, so take it back.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Watch the press for a few years and it's patently obvious that "word comes from above" when anything like this happens.
The medium is the message. If you watch TV, you won't see anything of any real importance. Get out of TVLand and you'll find a wide variety of news and opinion. The fact is, Americans have become fat and lazy. Most of us get our "news" from the medium that is least capable of providing insight and understanding, and most geared toward instant emotional gratification.
As an aside, if you'd ever worked in government, you'd know that there is no Ministry of Information Control. Your "patently obvious" observation is just a way of ducking the real problem. The real problem is the laziness of the American public. We are throwing away our republic. We should be throwing away our televisions.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
We recognize those acts as wrong.
Our government recognizes those acts as wrong.
Our government has issued reparations to the people who suffered them. Because they were wrong.
Now you're using those as a yardstick? Wrong is wrong. How about we just stick to the Constitution and the Amendments? Is that too much to ask?
Is there some reason that you advocate we commit ANOTHER crime other than the fact that we had committed one before?
Namaste
Slashdot == kdawson's political blog
I think he's the love child of michael and timothy. Is there any way we can send him where he belongs: digg.com?
In this section the President specifically states that he is aware that the U.S. Citizens affected by this may have Constitutional rights that this order violates. However, because of the ongoing (6+ years now) "National Emergency" said rights are nullified in the interests of efficiency.
So basically what he's doing is selectivly removing consitutional rights by executive order because the present circumstances, in his opinion alone, demand it.
He's explicitly and clearly attacking our rights because he says that he feels its necessary, no oversight, no checks, no balances, nothing.
If this is accepted it means that any president at any time can strip legal rights from U.S. Citizens, even if those rights are literally embedded in the Constitution just because he wants to. This means that the rule of law, the rule of the Constitution, is null and void.
And in this part:
They explicitly grant themselves the right to expand this power to anyone else they wish to. That is, the proactive seizure could be handed over to the DEA, the IRS, the ATF, etc if they feel necessary. No future executive order, no public record, will be necessary. Anyone up for proactive seizure of property because you may have cheated on your taxes? Keep in mind that the no fly list includes a large number of people who have committed the crime of having the same or similar sounding names as 'bad' people and no mechanism exists to get them removed from the list. How'd you like to have your house and money taken because you look kind of like a bad person only to have no means of picking back up because that's someone else's department?
What to do:
In all cases make it clear why you oppose this and why it is fundamentally wrong. It isn't a guarantee that they will rethink it but unless this stuff is exposed, discussed, and ultimately attacked then nothing will happen. And it won't be unless we spread this off
Democracy dies when noone is looking.
If you freeze my assets, I have no use of them. That is the same as seizure.
Again, no. If I seize your assets, I can do with them as I wish, including selling them. If I freeze your assets, I can't sell them, but I prevent you from selling them.
It's arguable if what they do can be considered "due process" under the law, but it's a lot better than what this order gives the Treasury Department the authority to do.
Uh, you do know that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, don't you? The bottom line is, as has been pointed out by numerous posters, this kind of authority is not unusual, nor is it a violation of the fifth amendment.
Do you think a suspected drunk driver gets a trial before his car is seized? No. How about someone whith what appears to the officer to be cocaine on the front seat? No.
He gets his car back if he's proven innocent, so he's not permanently deprived of it. But it's seized and used as evidence against him first. In some cases, he has to sue to get the property back even though he was acquitted or the charges were dropped.
Also, a search warrant isn't a trial, but it at least needs a judge.
Uh, I don't think you parsed that English correctly, that's not what the sentence says.
...
Let me cut out some of the extra fluff. The first sentence says
"I find that, due to unusual threats posed by violence in Iraq and efforts undermining economic reconstruction in Iraq, it's in US interest to take additional steps. I hereby order..."
The first paragraph is just an introduction. It says that the point of the Executive Order is to hurt those who are trying to hurt Iraq; that has no legally binding meaning, except as a justification to why it's being done.
I also don't have a problem with the gov't blocking bank accounts of terrorists. They already do this. Part (i) of Section 1 goes after people who are doing the terrorism. Part (iii) is the interesting one:
"""
(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
"""
See what happens there? They aren't referring to terrorists; they are referring to people who may be indirectly linked to terrorists. That's where the privacy rights people get up in arms. If I buy oil from the Saudis, and the Saudis donate the money to a charity which turns it over to terrorists, do I "indirectly" help them out? Who gets to define what "indirect" means; if it's the executive branch, it isn't a jury of your peers...
Ambiguity like this covers a wide swath of activities. I'm not claiming something crazy like they are going to start arresting people for buying gas, but it's not hard to read this order as "we now have the power to arbitrarily arrest people, but we only plan to apply it to terrorists."
I wish the logic said the power "CAN only" be used against terrorism. But instead, they the new power is claimed encompassing some ill-defined "indirect contributors" group, and a press release was made saying it "WILL only" be used against terrorism. The later depends on you trusting the government to hold its word; doesn't always seem to be true.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Not only that, but we PROTECT the rights of those Neo-Nazis to speak and protest IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.
We do not try to take away the property of anyone who says that they're right. Or who contributes to their organizations.
If we can give the Nazis in our own country that kind of protection, what is the problem with anyone saying anything about Iraq?
If contributing money is a CRIME, then take it to COURT! That is what our Constitution says.
Here's the relevant portion of the 5th (with my emphasis)... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; If the government can block my access to my property, then I can make no use of it, hence I am deprived of it. Are we really going to try to split some microscopic hair over this? Does anyone really believe that the writers of the Constitution meant for something like this to be legal? Unfortunately Congress probably can't do a thing about this, and it will have to go to the Supreme Court to be resolved, which can take quite a while. Of course in the meantime, the administration will be doing as they please. I'm so glad that Bush loves freedom so much that he's willing to go to these lengths to preserve it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What part of whether the executive order is valid or invalid do you think will impact the executive branch's decision to enforce it?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Important note: the "in time of War or public danger" clause applies to those in the military in service at such times. My other comment on this Executive Order is this. First note that this is an Executive Order
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What happened to news for nerds? It's turned into daily kos lite with some linux bits thrown in.
Michael was pretty bad, but kdawson is turning to be worse with the blatant editor abuse.
As a practical matter, though, it is valid until a court says otherwise, since the Dept. of the Treasury will treat it as valid, and so will your bank.
And as long as it's only used against legitimate threats, courts will be reluctant to declare it invalid, since that will also mean letting some scumbag off. And the more often it's wielded successfully, the more validity it accrues through precedent. Of course it is always possible, no matter how long this has gone on, for a court to strike it down on Constitutional grounds, but it becomes less likely.
For a real-world example of a very similar sequence of events, consider the court decisions from Miller to now regarding gun control. By the time you get to an outright ban on automatic weapons in the 80s, you've got a clear violation of the 2nd (whether you think that's a good idea or not is beside the point), based entirely on a chain of precedents going all the way back to Miller. It's arguable that Miller was, itself, bad case law. But it doesn't matter now, because it's been upheld as valid for so long.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
1) They have a warrant
2) Eminent domain
You are probably right that this happens anyway, in extreme cases like terrorism. But they are expanding "terrorism" into a lot of gray areas.
The Founding Fathers thought those rights were vital for a functioning democracy... and they had been through an actual war on U.S. soil. I'm inclined to trust their judgement on what we can 'afford'.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
How're you going to petition a judge without a lawyer? How'll you get a lawyer without your bank account?
That's the real danger in this Executive Order. They've given themselves the right to deprive you of most of your liquid assets without placing you in jail (where you would have access to some legal defense through the the public defender service).
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Wow- so you are saying they can freeze my assets, secretly, without court review, for the rest of my life, as long as they maintain the ruse that I might get them back someday.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Of course it will be argued that this is only intended to affect terrorists, and I suppose anybody can just take their word for that. Like the Military Commissions Act, it doesn't threaten you or your family or buddies with being "disappeared," whether murdered or put in some hellhole and tortured. Couldn't happen.
Sounds good.
What provisions exist in this order to make it absolutely sure that these asset freezes are temporary, and that the target gets a trial in a rapid fashion?
I don't think they could link protesters to this. The person needs to be directly and knowingly assisting terrorist activities related to Iraq in order to be covered by this order.
...then your assets can be frozen. Remember the rhetoric about how the anti-war movement was emboldening terrorists, and encouraging them to keep fighting? It wouldn't be a terrible stretch to claim that opposing the war "has the effect of threatening the stability of the Government of Iraq".
Unfortunately not. Check this:
(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:
This means that whether or not you intended to support terrorist activities, if the executive branch determines that your actions had "the 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;
What if you loudly oppose and try to stop the gargantuan no-bid Iraq reconstruction contracts being awarded to corrupt US contractors like Haliburton and Bechtel? Sounds pretty close to "having the effect of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction".
Now, perhaps a jury of our peers would think differently, but if you're asking the underlings of the president to make the judgment calls on this, such stretches of logic are entirely possible, and therefore very likely.
Define temporarily. A week? A month? A year? Five years? Ten years? Fifty years?
As this administration is well known to apply new and twisted logic to the common usage of words, temporarily could very well mean indefinitely.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
From the Whitehouse link, right before the section you quoted, it says: FYI, the Secretaries of Treasury, State, and Defense are all part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial, hence the apt phrase "secret process outside the courts" which you objected to.
Your claim that the well defined legal term treason is identical to the secret determination of a group of three members of the Bush administration that I merely pose a risk of committing violence in order to change their insane policies in Iraq (which they could easily interpret as undermining their efforts there) is worthy of Kafka.
According to you, if I go to a large demonstration against the Bush Iraq policies and there is a significant threat that there may be violence there then I am a traitor to my country. Sheesh. There is a significant threat of violence just driving to the damned demonstration.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If you find a guy cutting the electrical wires to people's houses, do you wait until after he is convicted to take away his cutters?
In order to take away his cutters you have to have Probable Cause that he was indeed the one doing the cutting. This executive order makes no such distinction.
If someone gets caught drunk driving, do you wait until he's convicted to stop them from driving?
Yes, you do. I don't know where you live, but here in Minnesota presumption of innocence still applies. As far as the traffic stop itself, the officer has to determine probable cause - e.g. field sobriety test, or smelling alcohol on your breath, or observing errant driving behavior.
As long as the person ultimately gets due process, there is nothing wrong with temporarily blocking access to the tools used to commit a crime.
Justice delayed is justice denied. That's why we have Habeas Corpus
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Have you see the bullshit our government has been doing to our country (and others) over the past 7 years? If you don't think we're in a national emergency, you haven't been paying attention.
Sorry dwm, but I disagree with this as noted below:
No. The relevant part of the fifth amendment states:Blocking the use of property is not legally the same as depriving someone of it (although, admittedly, practically-speaking it comes pretty close). If this were a violation of the fifth amendment, so would the IRS putting a lien on someone's property for tax purposes.
"Blocking" said use of property is pretty much the same thing... unless of course you think that said property will be magically released before damage to the owner('s life, liberty) occurs.
The "definition" Bush('s writers) are using is:
are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt inWhich pretty much means "Seized" - and either way is the same as depriving someone the use of.
Of course, either way, you are forgetting one of the most relevant parts in that Amendment - though you did quote that part:
without due process of lawThis is the other part of the Amendment that is being "violated" - which you neglected to point out while defending this action as Constitutional.
Sorry that I beg to differ with you. Semantics dont make something right (your claim of this being constitutional) - and the 2nd part of this is quite semantically undisputable (the lack of due process).
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
People like to talk about "freezing the assets of terrorists" or "people who support insurgents". Who could object to that? Why wouldn't you want to freeze the assets of terrorists or people who support insurgents? I certainly support that.
The problem is that this debate is framed incorrectly. What legislation like this is really about is giving the executive branch the power to simply declare that someone is a terrorist or supports insurgents, without due process and without benefit of a trial.
So, what the administration really wants is the power to determine unilaterally, without meaningful legal oversight or possibility for redress, to deprive citizens of property and possibly liberty.
Republicans: you're always complaining about bureaucracy and intrusive government. You're seeing the most intrusive government being created by your party. Worse, you're destroying the foundations on which this country was founded, the separation of powers. It would be wrong to call this "unprecendented" (after all, the US Constitution co-existed happily with slavery and racial inequality for many years), but you are moving in the wrong direction. Reign in your party, and deliver what you promise: smaller, less intrusive government. Strengthen the separation of powers, reduce government expenses (starting with the military), get government out of our bedrooms, and get the church out of government.
To suggest that this violates the fifth amendment is absurd: when a police officer, on arresting someone and discovering a gun in that person's belt buckle then removes the gun--is that a violation of the person's fifth amendment rights? Please...
When you're arrested, you get indicted and then tried in front of a court of law. When the Secretary of the Treasury declares you a terrorist collaborator, what recourse does one have? Where is the due process?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Nothing new here, really. In the auspices of the "War on Drugs" property is seized all the time, without due process involved. The rights of the American Citizen have been undermined well before September 11, 2001. The American populace didn't care when it only affected the drug using portion of the populace, and they won't care now that it only affects those that may or may not be aiding the enemy or hindering the progress of a group of hand selected corporations. This game has been over for longer than many would like to imagine and the citizenry lost.
Read it again.
You're not in error, you're simply not reading it from the perspective of what the power claimed in the Executive Order can be used for. The stuff you talk about in item #3 in your list isn't a limitation on that power, and the Executive Order is expanding it.
Also, let's say that Congress does repeal IEEP. That means that the few limits on the power (items of non-value, CD's, microfiches, etc.) would be wiped out, and it would give the President the power to pretty much do whatever he (or she) wants. That's what the IEEP was passed in the first place, to say that the power isn't without limit.
Of course, this administration doesn't recognize any limits on its power. When it does run up against a legal wall, it simply ignores the wall and does whatever it wants to anyway. Like I said, if you trust these guys, I think you're a bit naive and I obviously disagree with your assessment of their character. But more importantly, you're also setting the precedent that whomever is in office next (likely one of those evil liberal Democrats) will have the same powers.
If that's okay with you, then sure, go ahead and ignore the klaxons. It's not so okay with me, though.
> If the government can block my access to my property, then I can make no use of it, hence I am deprived of it.
>
> Does anyone really believe that the writers of the Constitution meant for something like this to be legal?
Mod up +1000: Clueless Slayer!
I am thoroughly disgusted by buffoons who want to change one word slightly and reintpret the Constitution as having no validity.
"No, you aren't deprived of it. You just can't ever have it back ever again if we don't want to give it back, and you have no legal way to even try."
Would they agree with this?
"No, you aren't being deprived of life. You are just having your heart stopped and your cells are allowed to die from lack of oxygen."
To which the incompent, deserving-of-death idiots will reply, "Ahhh, but they could always give you back your stuff. They couldn't give you back your life!"
Yes, idiots. But they can always give you back your stuff even if they deprive you of it fully and Constitutionally. You've got it all bass-ackwards.
And does it even "feel" like upholding the spirit of the Constitution? What's that?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Bingo. Your rights can only be taken if you allow it.
What really surprises me is that anyone thinks this is a new thing unique to this administration. The difference is the reporting on it. Burning people alive in Waco and shooting women in children in Ruby Ridge was "justified force" on "religious fanatics" or "white separatists", government surveillance/harassment of civil rights leaders in the 50s/60s was policing of "subversives" (the few rare times it was actually reported), but people get their panties in a wad about "violating the civil rights" of "terrorists"? I'm not saying they're wrong to be upset, they should be, but where the fuck have they been? Most of the people whining today are old enough to have at least been conscious during waco/ruby ridge/elian gonzales/etc. and yet those incidents are apparently a blank spot in their memory.
Welcome to the real world, folks. If you're worried about your rights being trampled upon, do something about it. I suggest becoming familiar with the phrase "cold dead hands".
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Except that this isn't a law. This is an Executive order granting powers to a set of executive offices. In a recent decision the Supreme Court argued that the public cannot challenge internal executive actions (such as this one claims to be) through the courts, effectively nullifying any judicial oversight. The case in question dealt with meetings being held with religious figures but the reasoning was similar and likely the same arguments would be advanced again.
But, ironically what this order attacks is the very foundation for such a lawsuit. If, in the executive's opinion your Constitutional rights are ineffective and therefore unnecessary on what grounds do you sue? If the grounds are violations of your rights then you have to ask Bush's Supreme Court to counter his own executive order. Such an action would be interesting to say the least, and unlikely to go forward.
Moreover such an action would likely have to occur after the fact, i.e. after said property was seized. But lacking all property it would be difficult to mount a challenge, especially if said seizure was kept as secret as other similar actions (i.e. library records seizures) have been. As such the damage, or some of it, may already be done.
As with Congress, well again this isn't a law (The president can't make that) but supposedly an internal executive thing. Yet it is being treated by them as if it is a law and a vehicle by which the President can make laws. Congress, however has other means to affect the departments involved and so can put pressure on the executive. They can also strip the departments in question of funding for such activities. They could also grow a spine and reassert their role as overseers and guardians of the Constitution.
The catch is that, as I said this is an Executive Order, but an Executive order that carries the force of law and declares some laws (i.e. The Constitution) to be invalid or "ineffective" and therefore unnecessary. Constitutionally the President cannot make laws. However it seems through Executive Orders he is seeking to do so practically and what he is going after is the very basis of that, the Constitution itself and the limits that is places on his, and the Federal Government's behavior.
The bottom line is that this is policy, bad policy, and the way in which you stop bad policy before damage is done is via public pressure. Congress, the Newspapers, others are in a position to apply said pressure along with the public. Better to stop it now before bad things happen than, like the PATRIOT act, let it get in place and wake up to find out where we are.
Exactly. Is the US honestly in a more dire position today than it was in the late 18th and early 19th Century ? It was the publically stated aim of the then superpower: Britain to invade and recover its American possesions.
The passage that follows clearly delineates who is affected by this order, and gives only the Secretary of the Treasury authority to act.
Not true. At the end of the Order, it states that the "Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government..." So, its true that the Secretary of the Treasury has the initial authority, but he may give that authority as he pleases to any agency that asks for such.
Certainly if any ol' traffic cop can impound your car because you are suspected of driving drunk, the Secretary of the Treasury can do the analogue?
SecTreas can do even worse. Read: "... to pose a significant risk of committing..." By the drunk driving analogy, this would be arrest on DWI by the officer observing you walking towards a parking lot.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
That's almost like saying that "I just don't allow you to eat, it's not like I deprive you of your life" -- to me it's the same shit, I don't care if you can't sell my assets, I care that I don't have access to them anymore (I've been deprived of them)
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Here, let me fix your phrasing for you:
There, now it represents the facts. Such facts include creation and enforcement of ex post facto laws, laws and actions with regard to all attempts to regulate intrastate commerce, direct suppression of free speech, laws that infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms, attempts to suspend habeas corpus, failure to allow citizens access to legal representation, failure to provide for public trial in the case of criminal prosecution, and a huge variety of offenses against personal liberty, such as telling you what you can put into your own body, what you can do with a consenting, informed adult, and what you may read, view, and say in the privacy of your own home, tapping the communications of US citizens without warrants... the list is long and reads like the plotting of a master criminal organization. Because that it what it represents.
Also, for what it is worth in this nightmare of constitutionally bewildered hand waving, the fourth amendment is the amendment that describes how seizure of property must be performed:
This boils down to (a) Probable cause, (b) Oath or affirmation, (c) Warrant.
The fifth also deals with takings of property for public use. When it says "due process" with regard to criminal proceedings, following the fourth, they expect you to have read the fourth as well as the fifth. So you really want to look at the fourth to see what they meant by "due process."
But... if you want to castigate the government for the 5th, then all you have to do is look at the supreme court's claim that the states can take property simply for the purpose of resale to a non-government entity with the goal of increasing tax revenue. The fifth enables takings for public use. Some real estate developer putting up buildings that are more taxable than yours is not by any stretch of the imagination putting the taken land to "public use." The relevant portion of the fifth is as follows:
Technical details aside, we know the constitution specifically meant to prevent this. It is a general document, and so it doesn't address this particular act of injustice directly, but it certainly addresses all the issues in plain English. Secret court and determination? No. Public Trial. Seizure without said trial? No. Warrant, oath or affirmation, probable cause, right to trial. It is as plain as day if we are honest with ourselves and we recognize that the federal government's legitimate operating range is defined by the constituting authority that is the US constitution itself.
If a person does not believe that, then I am not sure what exactly they think sets the limits of the government's authority, or if they think there are any such limits.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Are you so sure? Let's see that quote again...
I don't know if you've been keeping up with what's happening in Australia at the moment, but we have a man currently being held (though that's a story in itself) on a charge of giving his mobile phone SIM card (which had some free minutes left on it; he was leaving the country) to his mother's cousin whom he barely knew. See, he recklessly didn't bother to ask if his mother's cousin whom he barely knew if he was going to try to blow up the terminal at Glasgow International Airport at any point in the future.
This, apparently, is part of the definition of "material assistance".
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If anything, people are far less in touch with civil rights nowadays, mainly because we've convinced ourselves that they're permanent and we can never lose them (this is America, home of the brave, etc. etc.) We think that because we're technologically advanced, have hot-and-cold running water, electricity and an SUV that we're truly "Free" Unfortunately, most people don't notice that a "right" or liberty is missing until they need it. They wonder what the hell happened, maybe they dimly remember something about their parents or grandparents having had that particular liberty, but by then it's far too late.
... can you imagine what would happen if the proprietor of a hardware store offered high explosives for sale? Well, I think at a minimum we're talking a stiff prison sentence. Now certainly, such explosives are something few of us need, and in this day and age it would be a bad idea to permit casual sales of dynamite. But it is a freedom that we all had once, and lost. Believe it or not there are many others, all of them taken away for one reason or another, sometimes for good reason, sometimes not. But we let it happen, because it's easier to just believe our leaders when they say "we're assuming even more power, and restricting you at the same time, but really it's for your own good" than to fight and make them prove it to us. And lately, they've discovered that they can just scare us to death and get any power they want, although I think (I hope) that as a society we're wising up to that one. I don't know, though.
By way of example, back in the early Fifties, my father, his three brothers and his sister decided to drive out West and look for the Lost Dutchman gold mine. They never found it, alas, which is why I'm here posting on Slashdot rather than enjoying a cold one on the yacht that I'm sure my father would have left me. In any event, one of the things they needed was some dynamite, so on the way they stopped at a local hardware store in a small town somewhere and picked up a case, along with some blasting caps and a detonator. No problem. They went to a number of the usual places that people had searched for the mine, widened a few underground passages with some carefully placed charges, and then came home. On the way back they remembered they still had most of a case of dynamite left, so they went out into the desert and spent an afternoon blowing holes in it.
I'll wager that a lot of you don't believe me, but it's true. At that point in time nobody had thought to restrict our ability to buy high explosives, because nobody had been making political statements by blowing things up. Every time some moron decides to do something dangerously antisocial the government uses it as an excuse to ban that particular behavior and take away whatever existing freedoms it can get away with. The moron goes to jail (unless we're very lucky and he blew himself up too) and the rest of us live in a society that is just that much less free.
Flash forward about fifty years
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I 100% categorically deny the assertion that the Constitution is an impediment to fighting evil. It was wrong when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, it was wrong with the alien and sedition acts, it was wrong with McCarthy, it was wrong with the Japanese internment, it's wrong with the DEA seizures, it's wrong with this document.
It's still wrong.
Some regulatory takings are wrong. I tend to agree that property owners are entitled to some consideration when their property is devalued due to regulations.
But, just because that's wrong, doesn't make this right. Again: Binary thinking. Bad.
Individual liberty and real property rights are more important than fighting terror/Communism/the Japanese/Johnny Reb.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?