ShivaX
5523
His plan would basically force Twitter into being 8Chan.
ShivaX
5525
One could argue sanctions violate the 4th Amendment. What’s to stop a future President from sanctioning poor people or California?
Where is due process for Russia?
I mean, I can see a rational viewpoint that this sort of thing should be covered under something more like “accuse person of aiding a foreign enemy, freeze their assets after convincing a judge the charge is reasonable, then seize them after they’ve fled the country/declined summons/been found guilty.”
In this case, Congress says, “Russia has declared itself an enemy of America by prosecuting a war of aggression. We petition the President to direct the Justice Dept to investigate and prosecute anyone found to be providing significant aid to the Russian state in those efforts.”
Congress saying “Asshole McFuckstick is an enemy of the state, and his assets are to be seized” is kinda literally a bill of attainder?
It’s a bill that has no force in law — it ‘urges’ something — and AOC seems to be right about why it would be bad legislation if it did have any force in law. It isn’t about due process for Russia, it’s about due process for actual people, some of whom seem to be US persons subject to US law and enjoying the protections thereof.
Timex
5528
What exactly are the limits on the government seizing assets from non US citizens? Presumably there’s some limit? I honestly don’t know what the current state of Constitutional law says here. I know that constitutional protections do sometimes apply to non citizens.
wahoo
5529
What a weird voting alliance. But AOC is dead on accurate to her rationale. Need to have due process protections.
Ya, but if we have to use due process for seizing bad guys Yachts. What’s next due process for killing bad guys with drone strikes? We know they’re bad why waste time? /S
I’m with Strollen on this. It is never a bad thing to seize and redistribute an oligarch’s assets.
Hard agree. Let’s do Musk’s next.
It’s actually funny to me that Republicans in the House, who will call Biden a dictator for any statement or act at all, even for walking his dog, will also vote to give him the sole authority and discretion to seize and dispose of the assets of basically anyone anywhere in the world. Conservatism is weird. Hell, I guess Liberalism is weird, too, but at least they don’t complain about him being a dictator.
Actually, I was been sarcastic hence the /S
“Presidents aren’t Kings” to quote a judge. I’m happy to have an expedited process for non-US citizens, but somebody in the judiciary needs to sign off before we sell their yachts.
DoubleG
5535
Let’s just wait for the oligarchs to drive their yachts through a state that hasn’t outlawed asset forfeiture, so the highway patrol can seize their assets without worrying about due process.
DoubleG
5536
I’m curious on this too, didn’t Biden just seize the $7 billion stored in the US from Afghanistan’s treasury and redistribute it to 9/11 victims, using an executive order?
Yes, but only 1/2. The rest went back to humanitarian aid for Afghanistan. Hey we left them weapons worth a lot more than that. They can sell them to either Ukraine or Russia. Although, they’ll probably use them for killing adulters in football stadiums in particularly gory ways.
Houngan
5538
Gotta be honest, I really don’t care until we sort out how they can seize assets from actual US citizens. Asset forfeiture is ridiculous and gross as it exists right now with no externalization needed.
Yes, to our shame. I don’t think we should want more of that sort of thing.
Also, seizing their yachts feels good (and, honestly, is probably more justice than they’ll otherwise see), but it removes a significant bit of leverage we could otherwise use to try to influence them (not that I think that’s very practical right now).
Timex
5541
Ultimately, if congress approves something like asset seizure, especially for a non citizen, the thought may be that the person having their assets seized is essentially having some sort of trial by Congress itself. I think it’s similar to how Congress has the power (that they never use) to throw people into jail for contempt, without them actually going through the justice system. If congress wants to throw you into jail, they can do so on the basis of a vote, and it’s the fact that they have to have a majority agree which ends up translating into a form of “due process”.
It’s weird though, as there seems like there’s some line that shouldn’t be crossed, but I’m not sure exactly where it is.
This is a bit like Congress passing a resolution that encourages the President to decide himself who is in contempt of Congress and then throw those people in jail, without any oversight by Congress or the courts.
Even the homeland security powers we went crazy with in the aftermath of 9/11 passed — at least in theory — across a FISA court desk before they were carried out. Giving the executive the sole power both to decide you are bad and to punish you for it seems guaranteed to produce abuse of power.
The appropriate and sane first response to any proposal expanding executive power should be to ask “how will Ron DeSantis abuse this power?”
Although the extant proposal specifies “all constitutional steps” so I’m sure it’s fine.
