Did Bush just repeal the Fifth Amendment? [Another Executive Order 8/2]

[caduceus111]

Although the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law," on July 17 President Bush issued an executive order authorizing the Treasury department to seize any and all property belonging to individuals who "pose a significant risk" of committing violent acts that undermine the "peace or stability" of Iraq. The action does not require congressional approval.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow clarified in a press briefing that the intent is to target "terrorists and insurgent groups," but the American Civil Liberties Union protested that the executive order "posed risks for residents of the United States." Michael Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, argued that the executive order in effect criminalized mere opposition to the war. But the matter raised only tepid protests from Congress and little attention in the press. (Two notable exceptions are this July 23 article by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post and this Aug. 5 op-ed by Editorial Page Editor John Diaz in the San Francisco Chronicle.)

Emboldened, perhaps, by the mild response, on August 2 President Bush issued a similar executive order regarding Lebanon. This action authorizes the Treasury to "block the property and interests in property" of "any U.S. persons" (including "a spouse or dependent child") who challenge "the sovereignty of Lebanon" (i.e., support Syria's occupation of Lebanon and its interference in Lebanese politics). In this instance the target can be anyone whose actions are deemed to "pose a significant risk" of undermining Lebanon's democratic processes, violent or not.

Wow. First Iraq, now Lebanon.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171743/entry/0/

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. Get ready for martial law, no elections and more war

Seems we have a congress complicit with these thugs.

[Kagemusha]

2. Not repeal, but if he tries using this in practice, major court fight coming.

Now, he's not the first President to threaten to abuse powers of seizure; not by a mile. But he chose to have these orders written in a way that's partially legal and partially illegal (by my reading of it, anyway). If he tries enforcing the obviously unconstitutional components, he's begging for a big slap-down later. To that extent, that's the tug of war inherent in separation of powers; presidents trying to push it is nothing new, though that doesn't make it right.

But I'm just saying this because "repeal" invites a completely different understanding of what's going on. He's not repealing the amendment; he's ignoring it. A judge may someday remind him that this amendment still exists.. and has not been repealed. I hope that day is soon, but in another way, I don't; if he's not fool enough to use this power in an unjust manner (like I said, SOME aspects of this order are, I believe, quite legal), there'll be no need for such a confrontation in a courtroom. But that'd require faith and I don't have much of that.

[AndyTiedye]

3. I Have No Faith in the Supreme Court Anymore

The Supreme Court has a majority that would overturn the 5th Amendment or any other to give Bush** whatever he wants.

[ThomCat]

4. If they think they can get away with it, I'm sure you're right.

If they think that Bush and his MSM allies have the power to prevent a civil war, I think they would rule in his favor.

[aquart]

5. Which means giving the next president all that power.

I know Republicans are short-sighted, but THAT short-sighted?

[Kagemusha]

6. Apparently so

They don't seem to think that President Hillary is possible ever.

[AndyTiedye]

7. What Next President?

Who says they're leaving?

[MatrixEscape]

8. These EO's

should be seen from two contexts. If you frame them in the ordinary, things as usual point-of-view, then maybe something in the way of process could be considered a potential response.

However, it is the circumstances that would make the long list of EOs and PDs useful tools in place for a full-out shift to blatant dictatorship, (as opposed to the more subtle and covert type). Keep in mind that the Military will be controlled by civilians, (that is already spelled out) to prevent the kind of coup that people might expect in order to prevent this.

So, if Martial Law is ever enacted in any extensive way, (regardless of what triggers it) everything is in place already to fully enforce that rule and to keep in it place for as long as the dictator so chooses. Government as usual will be another matter and the due process available will be questionable under such a situation.