We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The Executive Order

Libertarians on Reddit are calling out an executive order from Obama that appears to allow the federal government to seize property from anyone who donates money to anyone that the federal government does not like. The New York Times makes it sound far more reasonable and mundane.

How bad is it?

10 comments to The Executive Order

  • Laird

    It does seem pretty outrageous. Leaving aside the question of the constitutional authority of the President to issue such an order (I have a significant problem with the constitutionality of most Executive Orders, but for the most part they seem to be able to pass muster in our obsequious federal courts), this one seems blatantly unconstitutional if only because of its complete disregard of anything remotely resembling due process. Assets are to be seized solely on the basis of the Secretary of the Treasury making a “determination” that the relevant person is engaged in “malicious cyber-enabled activities”. There is no specified process for making such a determination, no opportunity for notice or the ability to contest it (indeed, because of the ease of transferring funds the Order specifically states that “there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination”), and no hint of any judicial review process. As far as I can tell, once the Secretary makes his determination the assets are forfeited forever, with no mechanism for ever getting them back even if you really aren’t engaged in “malicious cyber-enabled activities”. This cannot be constitutional.

    And I find especially offensive the language in Section 2: “I hereby prohibit such donations.” Much as he might like to think otherwise, the president is not a king; he does not possess the authority to “prohibit” anything on his mere say-so.

    Fuck you, Obama.

  • if only because of its complete disregard of anything remotely resembling due process.

    In what way is it any different to the already widespread asset forfeiture racket? Since when has due process mattered in the post-RICO USA?

  • the other rob

    AFAICT, the current procedure at least pretends to observe some bastardised form of due process. Hence court cases such as “The United States versus a couple hundred bucks, a Camaro and a tin of chewing tobacco.”

    From what Laird says, El Presidente For Life’s latest proclamation fails to honour even that minimalist pretense.

  • mojo

    “or anyone the Secretary may designate” bad.

  • Paul Marks

    Perry is correct – RICO (and all the rest of such stuff) has already destroyed the 4th Amendment.

    And “conservative” judges on the Supreme Court were to blame for that.

    As for the out-of-control Federal Executive.

    Some Constitutions (such as that of Texas – 1876) carefully control what the Executive can do.

    However, the Federal Constitution is not so tightly worded.

    Yes – a fair person would admit that what Presidents (and their minions) do is not what the Founders intended, but judges are not fair people, they are hacks appointed by the very government they are supposed to limit.

    Judges will only act against the President if it is absolutely obvious that that he has acted unconstitutionally.

    That is why vague wording is no good – no good at all.

    “But Paul if you insist on exact wording the Constitution would be as long as the Constitution of Texas or the Constitution of Alabama”.

    Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

    Most people do not read the United States Constitution anyway (inspite of its being only a few pages long).

  • CaptDMO

    But Paul, if you insist on exact wording, the PP ACA would be…..oops.
    And yet, like the US Tax code, no one “get’s it” in it’s entirety.
    Weasle words have fungible “exactness”. Exact words have fungible “original intent”, and…you know….”popular (purposful) malapropism”.
    Many mavens of lexograpyh, sympathetic to sales of “New Rules!” pamphlets, cite ” usage”.
    Personally, I’d rather abide with the ravings of a convicted murder…in an asylum for the insane.

  • CaptDMO

    Oh THAT will resolve the whole “inversion” of corporate assets from the US “issue”!
    But….”Nationalization!”…and “repatrization” of assets sounds so pretty.

  • Ellen

    April 01 …

  • Richard Thomas

    Ellen, apparently not, sadly (Well, it was the date but was not a fools.)

    The truth is, exact, inexact, the rules only matter if anyone cares to enforce them. The truth of the US constitution is that it was not written in order to provide a nice set of rules to live by but because the people and government at the time had just fought an awful and bloody war because the government had overstepped reasonable bounds and they wanted to avert future conflicts.

    The next constitution should probably be written in the form of a warning and probably with in-line passages of encouragement to the people to resist despotic actions.

  • Richard Thomas

    And drop the passive voice too.