Bush Abolishes Fifth Amendment

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
34
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#1
George W. Bush who has already declared himself a dictator in the case of a national emergency has now issued an executive order that effectively destroys the Fifth Amendment.

A few days ago, Bush signed a new executive order in which he uses broad language to claim that he has the power to seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The language in the executive order is broadly defined and does not specifically identify a specific group of individuals that the order applies to. It opens up the possibility of anti-war protesters and other political dissidents having their property confiscated for simply speaking out against the war.

Below is section 1 of the order. Click here for the full text of Bush’s 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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.


The language in this executive order is incredibly disturbing. Undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction as cited above is broadly defined and could mean anybody that speaks out against the Iraq war. Essentially, Bush is declaring that he can take people’s property without due process if the government determines that in some way a person is undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. Bush fails to mention The Fifth Amendment or due process anywhere in the order.

Below is the full text of the Fifth Amendment. Clearly, this executive order is unconstitutional when you consider that the Fifth Amendment guarantees that a person will not be deprived of property without due process.

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 offense 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.

The web site Slashdot posted an article analyzing the Bush executive order and came to the exact same conclusion. Amazingly, the establishment press has spun the coverage of this Bush order as a way to strengthen the government’s ability to fight terrorism when the real story is that this order violates the Fifth Amendment and is entirely unconstitutional.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#3
So many people just flat out don't care about their constitutional rights. Every time I hear someone say, "well if you're not doing anything wrong what do you care?" i just want to bang my head against a brick wall.
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
42
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#7
So many people just flat out don't care about their constitutional rights. Every time I hear someone say, "well if you're not doing anything wrong what do you care?" i just want to bang my head against a brick wall.
hahaha, that's exactly what I was thinking too!

And of course, the expected response followed immediately.

wow, a Bush hater thread. I haven't seen one of these before:rolleyes:
Sutton1,

What exactly does the President need to do to open your eyes? Does he need to break out the sniper rifle and start shooting people from the white house for sport? Would sexually molesting a collie at his next press conference do it?

It sickens me that you are willing to give up THE CONSTITUTION like a drunk hooker looking for a quick buck.

Don't you value your constitution? The founding principles of this country?

Personally, I am not willing to just lay down and watch it be eroded before my very eyes.

And it's not about being a BUSH HATER. I voted for the guy twice.

I don't care about PARTY POLITICS. I CARE ABOUT MY COUNTRY.

My country is first and foremost. A political party is just something used to corrupt my government and burden my country.

Bush hater...hahaha
 

Chris H.

administrator emeritus
Jul 1, 2004
10,607
17,558
1,743
Tulsa, Okla.
chris.hasenpflug.net
#9
The topic of this thread (which I hope you just copy and pasted from digg) is absolutely false. The president has no authority to abolish a constitutional amendment. And once this rule is applied and the supreme court reaches the same finding you have then it will be stricken. However the "checks and balances" don't come into place until the law is actually applied. Its not unconstitutional to have crappy law, its just unconstitutional to enforce it. Several laws are out there that wouldnt hold up if they were actually enforced.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#10
The topic of this thread (which I hope you just copy and pasted from digg) is absolutely false. The president has no authority to abolish a constitutional amendment. And once this rule is applied and the supreme court reaches the same finding you have then it will be stricken. However the "checks and balances" don't come into place until the law is actually applied. Its not unconstitutional to have crappy law, its just unconstitutional to enforce it. Several laws are out there that wouldnt hold up if they were actually enforced.
true, and i don't think the white house is turning into the gestapo, but this could be sort of a scare tactit. if nothing else, it just shows how much respect the white house has for our intelligence. Serioulsy, and I was never a bush hater, but the way the white house has been acting lately they must take us for complete idiots who will believe anything.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
65
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
#12
However, IF it was was applied, let's say against Cindy Shehan, then how much would it cost that person to fight the law? To take it to the Supreme court? How does this person do this when all their assets have been frozen or confiscated? I see this going the way of the RICO laws. First enacted to fight organized crime. Now used to confiscate the house and autos of ordinary marijuana smokers. Laws like these have a way of expanding in how they are employed. Executive orders have the force of law until overturned by the Courts. Remember a large part of that court was appointed by Bush1 and Bush 2 and is not exactly unbiased.

Now is the time for the ACLU to file an attack on this order.
 

Pokit N

Cashing Checks & Snapping Necks!
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
6,805
4,148
1,743
39
South Elgin, IL
#15
Any suggestions on how to change the Verbiage that would allow the intent of the law, but not allow it to freeze a protesters accts or something?
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,105
3,081
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#18
This posting has made me actually go look to see what an executive order is. There are a ton of them. So far this year there have been 19. Many of them I never heard of. There is one for the forests of Puerto Rico. One for the Holy See to the U.N. Here is a shocker, cooperation among agencies in protecting the enviroment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and non road engines.

In reading the latest one I noticed it was not posted completely. However, it seems to be against the fifth amendment in that if Cindy Sheehan were to incite violence (which I thought was already illegal) she could fall under this order and lose her assets. And if I donated money unknowingly to her cause, then I could be subjected to this order as well.

Of course it would have to be proven that she incited violence against the peace and stability of the Iraq goverment or undermine reconstuction, humanitarian assistance or political reform. Maybe this was designed for Hillary C. to keep her from running.:cool:
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
42
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#20
Chris,

I totally agree with what you are saying, but the problem is you have THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES issuing Executive Orders that BLATANTLY disregard the constitution.

We shouldn't have to wait for him to apply it and for it to be enforced and then fought against.

WHY?

Because, they are doing it WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

Remember the military commissions act?

They can use that act in conjunction AND THERE WILL BE NO FIGHTING because there will be no lawyer, no due process, no legal rights whatsoever.

You are gone and so is your property.

It's simply the "principle" of the matter.