Remember this?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now read this, bearing in mind that it applies to any US citizen or permanent resident alien. To recap:
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Another Executive Order from a President who thinks the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper".
- Log in to post comments
Adolf Hitler only needed one Enabling Act. George Bush is doing in parts. I think it's because of George's inability to read complicated documents or to think of the big picture.
So expalin to me exactly, John, how ordering that property of those acting against US interests in Iraq 'may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in' violates the Fifth Amendment.
And when the US places similar freezes on real property, in furtherance of environmental regulations, or drug laws, or racketeering statutes, as it has for at least the last 50 years how is that different?
Which part of "unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" don't you understand? Or perhaps there's something I don't understand. In that case, you can break it down for me.
I have to agree with Gerard. The precedent for freezes and seizures with the burden of proof lying on the owner to get the property back has been well-established; if anything this is less egregious than many of the other applications. The "War on Drugs" has been so thorough in gutting the constitution in previous decades that there's hardly anything left for the Bushies to violate.
No worries. This is why we have a judicial branch. People always get way too upset about changes in the law, freaking out and liberally applying monikers of totalitarianism. Let things shake out. If the provision is indeed an egregious violation of the Constitution, organizations like the ACLU and the Institute for Justice will bring suits. If there's a reasonable case, it will be granted certiorari. We should only start to worry about fascism if the executive branch starts ignoring the Court's rulings.
Also, alarmists need to realize that our Bill of Rights has been molded to fit so many prudential concerns that the literal meanings are pretty much universally disregarded, see e.g., all of 1st and 4th amendment precedent. That's why activism (on the right and the left) is something that should be avoided. So there'll always be uncertainty about this stuff, unless you want a bunch of Clarence Thomases and Hugo Blacks (and I doubt you do).