Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Bush actually doesn't have the authority to do this. He just doesn't. "Executive orders" are instructions given to cabinet members. They're no different from any boss telling any employee what he wants them to do.
In this case, this "Executive Order" appears to instruct the Treasury Secretary on certain actions to take that are patently illegal. Any court test should find this order to be completely invalid. Of course, that's AFTER the constitutional rights of a citizen have been trampled....
|
I would hope that the courts would overturn such an executive order, but I will expect it when I see it. For the drug war it took an act of Congress and then President Clinton to sign it. Prior to this reform the government could seize your assets on as little as an anonymous tip that you had something to do with the drug trade. They didn't have to get a conviction or even an indictment to do so, they would simply file a forfeiture action against said property (not the owner) and essentially require that the owner prove that his property wasn't used in or the benefit of drug activity. (this is a reversal of the burden of proof, where a plaintiff should have to prove that the defendant is guilty either beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, or a preponderance of the evidence in a civil court, before the court could make any judgement against the defendant)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...orfeiture.html
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/fa...asset_2001.cfm
If it were up to me, forfeiture would be VERY hard for the government to do. I would think that they should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the person whose property is being seized that they committed a felony AND that they should have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the each piece of property to be seized was either the ill gotten gains of a crime, or was used in the commission of the crime. In addition, NONE of the forfeited assets should go to law enforcement agencies, as it's a conflict of interest for those who are going to seize assets to be subject to forfeiture to be benefitting financially from the forfeitures of assets. Put the moneys from those things that are forfeited into some other government need, where there isn't a blatant conflict of interest.
Edited to add links