the executive order Bush signed last week is getting some attention

[evince]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19976707/


OLBERMANN: One more thing that may be added to this ledger, Bruce.

The conservative Web site WorldNetDaily had posted today a critique of Mr. Bush that could have read like one posted on liberal Web sites that referred specifically to this executive order that he signed last week, claiming the power to seize anyone‘s assets if he decides they have so much as received goods or services for someone who might pose a risk of committing violence in Iraq.

A, can he do this? B, can he do this to Americans in America? And C, what does that Fifth Amendment say about it?

FEIN: Well, he has claimed to do this under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. And even if it authorized him to do that, the Constitution surely does not. Because the gist of the executive order is to impose a financial death penalty on anyone who he says on his say-so alone creates a significant risk of undermining the rehabilitation program or political reforms in Iraq.

A “significant risk.” Now they could conclude that you have a risk if you are very hostile to the various policies that he has undertaken in Iraq. And this idea that you could end your financial life unilaterally without notice is totally antithetical to the Fifth Amendment.

OLBERMANN: As clear, and as ever allegiance first to the Constitution, Bruce Fein, constitutional lawyer and former Reagan deputy attorney general. Good to talk to you, again, sir. And thanks for your time tonight.

 

[evince]

http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4548

Last week I posted on in in hopes it was just bullshit from a wacky sight, I guess it is not.

 

[uscitizen]

Well the Bush stacked supremes would support it. After all the DEA has been doing this for years.
We are already well down that slippery slope.

 

[evince]

Bruce Fein, constitutional lawyer and former Reagan deputy attorney general

I think this guy is qualified to analyse this one and now Im really scared of what Bush and team has in store for us.

 

[cawacko]

Well the Bush stacked supremes would support it. After all the DEA has been doing this for years.
We are already well down that slippery slope.

How do you figure the Supreme Court is Bush stacked? 2 out of 9 = stacked? So Clinton stacked the Supreme Court by your definition?

 

[Epicurus]

Can you find a quote of the EO and a scholar's assessment of its practical application?

That would be helpful. Everything I read on it is so vague.

 

[uscitizen]

How do you figure the Supreme Court is Bush stacked? 2 out of 9 = stacked? So Clinton stacked the Supreme Court by your definition?

Did I say just one Bush ?

 

[cawacko]

Did I say just one Bush ?

yeah, that David Souter is a real hard core conservative there on the court.

 

[cawacko]

Did I say just one Bush ?

4 out of 9 still doesn't equal stacked. If you are going to stack a court you need a majority.

 

[uscitizen]

Are you saying that the majority of the supremes are not conservative leaning ?

 

[Epicurus]

Are you saying that the majority of the supremes are not conservative leaning ?

It's been mostly 5-4 decisions man.

That is not "stacked" by any means. That is as equally split as a court can be, you just don't like the results.

 

[cawacko]

Are you saying that the majority of the supremes are not conservative leaning ?

five out of the nine justices lean conservative no question. But its not a Bush packed Supreme Court.

 

[uscitizen]

His appointees tipped the scales.

 

[Cancel7]

It's been mostly 5-4 decisions man.

That is not "stacked" by any means. That is as equally split as a court can be, you just don't like the results.

Nitpick, but the fact remains he is quite correct that the Roberts' court would uphold this.

 

[uscitizen]

trivia question which president started the seizure of private property without due process ?

 

[cawacko]

His appointees tipped the scales.

this must be the new math that they talk about. 4 out of 9 = stacked or majority.

You are correct David Souter tipped the scales.

 

[Epicurus]

Nitpick, but the fact remains he is quite correct that the Roberts' court would uphold this.

I have my doubts. But the Court has been greatly weakened as a branch of govt in the last hundred years though, and has assumed a more servile role than the founders perhaps intended. Ever since FDR rode roughshod over the Constitution with the New Deal, the Supreme Court has been less and less dilligent about striking down unconstitutional legislation. Just because something sounds like a good idea does not mean that we should do it, or that the Constitution provides the authority for it to be done.

America is a diverse cultural melting pot. It doesn't matter if you are Hispanic, black, or Asian, you are welcome in the country nonetheless. It always bothers me when people want members of a certain race or adherents of a certain creed to "get out of America". Everyone, regardless of their color or creed, should be welcome in America. I define only one critical criterion for "true citizenship" and it has nothing to do with your color or ideology.

If you do not support the Constitution, you should move. It is the thread that binds together the fabric of American society. A loss of respect for this document unweaves the only thing that binds us together, our common belief that government should be of the people, for the people, and by the people.

 

[evince]

http://www.riotusa.org/about.html

here Warren this site has links to all of them I think

 

[Epicurus]

Awesome, thanks.

I'll check it out. I don't want to take a stand here until I know what this resolution specifically entails.

 

[Cancel7]

I have my doubts. But the Court has been greatly weakened as a branch of govt in the last hundred years though, and has assumed a more servile role than the founders perhaps intended. Ever since FDR rode roughshod over the Constitution with the New Deal, the Supreme Court has been less and less dilligent about striking down unconstitutional legislation. Just because something sounds like a good idea does not mean that we should do it, or that the Constitution provides the authority for it to be done.

America is a diverse cultural melting pot. It doesn't matter if you are Hispanic, black, or Asian, you are welcome in the country nonetheless. It always bothers me when people want members of a certain race or adherents of a certain creed to "get out of America". Everyone, regardless of their color or creed, should be welcome in America. I define only one critical criterion for "true citizenship" and it has nothing to do with your color or ideology.

If you do not support the Constitution, you should move. It is the thread that binds together the fabric of American society. A loss of respect for this document unweaves the only thing that binds us together, our common belief that government should be of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Well, I've been round and round, till I was round the bend with libertarians on this "the new deal was unconstitutional" thing, and it doesn't have anything to do with this, so let's skip that.

I suppose Bush will have to move to utilize this before it will be challenged and get to the Supreme Court, so we will find out then. However, bush has been picking judges who are partial to executive power, and even, to the absolutely radical notion of this "unitary executive theory". And there might be some who believe he is doing that just for fun, but I'm not one of them.

We will see how these laws and precidents will sit with a certain crowd if there is another Clinton in the white house, because baby, I can hear the howling now.