Can a Cypriot-like seizure happen here in the United States? Could Congress seize half of my savings and call it a tax? Let's see if there are any constitutional protections against it.
Perhaps the most likely constitutional protection that would be used against something like this is the 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines. However, the term is excessive and it does not prevent the government from seizing a minor or small amount of your savings account, perhaps 10 to 15 percent would not be considered excessive. If it came down to it, it would be whatever Congress felt they could get away with.
A move toward a less excessive and more responsible government is probably the best defense against a bail-out seizure like the one recently witnessed in Cyprus. Let's first work on making certain this type confiscation of can't be deemed as necessary.
But safeguards need to be in place, because of on a voluntary basis, it has happened here in the United States before.
It was the panic of 1907 that led to many big, rich dudes using their own money to bail out banks. That led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. But what would happen if the Federal Reserve ran out of bail-out cash?
If ever there was a crisis that would cause the US Government to seize the savings of it's citizens, you can bet there would be a run on the banks first. There were be a massive effort to hide assets away into tax shelters and overseas accounts. Now that we have Cypress as an example, people will recognize the signs and prepare. If there is ever a chance that this would happen elsewhere or the US, chances are, there would not be a lot of money to confiscate. This, perhaps, is the best defense against something like this happening in the United States. No matter what a government does, the truly wealthy know how to protect their wealth.
It may be better for Congress to take action now to make such action unlawful. I am not speaking about another 13-hour Rand Paul-type filibuster. We need an actual law that would cause a super-majority of both houses of Congress to repeal. This would be a better option than trying to get a guarantee from a Administration that may be out of power before the crisis arrives. The crisis may be around the corner, and that makes failure to act immediately would be risky.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Over the Top Criticism, the Possible GOP Downfall
Pick your battles, it has been uttered many times in many places. There is a reason for that, it's good advice. But the Tea Party and some members of the GOP don't seem to care. Before we go on, please view the following "Talking Points Memo" for Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2207801376001/
Did you hear what he said near the end? "Criticism of the President has been so over the top that independent Americans are beginning to tune out."
In other words, there has been so much criticism of the president that it just doesn't stick any longer. Perhaps this, more than anything else, is the reason that Mitt Romney is not sitting in the Oval Office today.
Let's take a look at one of the most recent stands against The President, the 13-hour filibuster by Rand Paul. Most of you think that this was over the President's controversial decision to allow drones to kill American citizens. However, that was missed by many. The filibuster was over the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director. Brennan is nominated to take the place of David Petreaus who resigned just after Election Day after he revealed that he had an extra-marital affair with his biographer.
Here is why Paul's filibuster was over the top. First, he was not debating a law that would allow the use of drones in law enforcement. He was blocking the nomination of a director of a government agency. Something that the US Senate has only advise and consent authority to approve. Normally, even when the President is of the opposite party of the majority of the Senate, such nominations are a rubber stamp process. There is normally, even under the most controversial of nominees, such nominations are just "rubber stamped" by the Senate.
The reason for the filibuster? Brennan states that he agreed that drones can be used to kill US Citizens without due process. Is this stand constitutional?
Let's look at the text of the Fifth Amendment.
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.
(Italics added)
There are clear exceptions to the due process clause.
1. In a military action. The US Armed forces are allowed to defend themselves without due process, even if there is no declared war. The Constitution does not say that it MUST be the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. It could also be the National Guard in any state, the Border Patrol, the ATF or any armed government agency. If they are clearly in danger, they are allowed to act accordingly.
2. Wartime. See 1861 to 1865.
3. When the public is in danger. Let's say there are some drug smugglers working their way through the Abajo Mountains in Southeastern Utah that are being followed by drones. They are clearly going to run into a Boy Scout troop also hiking through the mountains. There is a clear danger to the scouts. There is no way to get a warning to the troop to change their course or to stay where they are. The troop is clearly in danger. The only way to deal with the drug smugglers is with a drone. Do you think the public would be in an outrage if nothing is done and the scouts pay for the unfortunate encounter with their lives? Clearly, there would be. If this public is in danger, there is no need to wait for a warrant.
I was also upset that Brennan and some others who have spoken on the matter were so casual in speaking about the use of drones. However, there are clear exceptions to the due process clause. The comments by Brennan and the White House should have been clear about that. They should have also emphasized that such exceptions are rare and that they are definitely not declaring war on ordinary Americans and that they are not seeking to circumvent the constitution in any way.
But here is the problem. President Obama was reelected by a clear margin. That does not mean that we should cowtow to everything he proposes. It is clear that there are sharks in the water and they smell blood. The GOP needs to be careful. Fighting the president and his party on everything is clearly not working, and could be fatal to the party.
I know that some people in the Tea Party think that now is the time to end the Republican Party as we know it. However, if you think it is hard to fight progressives now, just wait until we have no party to unite under. Then you will see how difficult things really are. And if you study history, you will know that the collapse of one of the two major parties (the Whig party) was one of the per-cursors to the Civil War.
One thing that should be done, let's also give credit and compliments where it is due. Not everything that the President has proposed is bad or harmful. Some of it has been good. Some of his reforms were necessary. And yes, the economy was in pretty bad shape when he took over.
It is true that when GW Bush was in office, the Democrats seemed to want to fight everything. However, the GOP does not have the press nor Hollywood on their side right now. That puts the GOP at a clear disadvantage.
The Republicans should wake up and realize that sometimes, they are the own worst enemy. It's hard to attract the people to your camp that you need to win elections when you act like spoiled children every single time something is not going to go your way. The nomination of John Brennan is one of those times. Let him use his drones and he will turn one of his own key constituencies against him, the ALCU. Rocky Anderson and his allies will be all over that like flies on a cow dropping. Hopefully, someone will not have to due for this to happen. Sooner or later, even with Obama in the White House, it will.
The GOP should do this; determine what the biggest two are three threats to America is and fight that. Whether it is the expanding debt, or same-sex marriage or whatever it is, and just fight that. Let the Dems and the President have some victories. The drone issue, for example, is one of those victories to let them have. The Constitution is already pretty clear on what can and can't be done without due process. Let the constitution, which you claim to believe in and support work for you. The GOP should make a stand, but this was not the time, and Rand Paul only looks foolish for doing so.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2207801376001/
Did you hear what he said near the end? "Criticism of the President has been so over the top that independent Americans are beginning to tune out."
In other words, there has been so much criticism of the president that it just doesn't stick any longer. Perhaps this, more than anything else, is the reason that Mitt Romney is not sitting in the Oval Office today.
Let's take a look at one of the most recent stands against The President, the 13-hour filibuster by Rand Paul. Most of you think that this was over the President's controversial decision to allow drones to kill American citizens. However, that was missed by many. The filibuster was over the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director. Brennan is nominated to take the place of David Petreaus who resigned just after Election Day after he revealed that he had an extra-marital affair with his biographer.
Here is why Paul's filibuster was over the top. First, he was not debating a law that would allow the use of drones in law enforcement. He was blocking the nomination of a director of a government agency. Something that the US Senate has only advise and consent authority to approve. Normally, even when the President is of the opposite party of the majority of the Senate, such nominations are a rubber stamp process. There is normally, even under the most controversial of nominees, such nominations are just "rubber stamped" by the Senate.
The reason for the filibuster? Brennan states that he agreed that drones can be used to kill US Citizens without due process. Is this stand constitutional?
Let's look at the text of the Fifth Amendment.
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.
(Italics added)
There are clear exceptions to the due process clause.
1. In a military action. The US Armed forces are allowed to defend themselves without due process, even if there is no declared war. The Constitution does not say that it MUST be the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. It could also be the National Guard in any state, the Border Patrol, the ATF or any armed government agency. If they are clearly in danger, they are allowed to act accordingly.
2. Wartime. See 1861 to 1865.
3. When the public is in danger. Let's say there are some drug smugglers working their way through the Abajo Mountains in Southeastern Utah that are being followed by drones. They are clearly going to run into a Boy Scout troop also hiking through the mountains. There is a clear danger to the scouts. There is no way to get a warning to the troop to change their course or to stay where they are. The troop is clearly in danger. The only way to deal with the drug smugglers is with a drone. Do you think the public would be in an outrage if nothing is done and the scouts pay for the unfortunate encounter with their lives? Clearly, there would be. If this public is in danger, there is no need to wait for a warrant.
I was also upset that Brennan and some others who have spoken on the matter were so casual in speaking about the use of drones. However, there are clear exceptions to the due process clause. The comments by Brennan and the White House should have been clear about that. They should have also emphasized that such exceptions are rare and that they are definitely not declaring war on ordinary Americans and that they are not seeking to circumvent the constitution in any way.
But here is the problem. President Obama was reelected by a clear margin. That does not mean that we should cowtow to everything he proposes. It is clear that there are sharks in the water and they smell blood. The GOP needs to be careful. Fighting the president and his party on everything is clearly not working, and could be fatal to the party.
I know that some people in the Tea Party think that now is the time to end the Republican Party as we know it. However, if you think it is hard to fight progressives now, just wait until we have no party to unite under. Then you will see how difficult things really are. And if you study history, you will know that the collapse of one of the two major parties (the Whig party) was one of the per-cursors to the Civil War.
One thing that should be done, let's also give credit and compliments where it is due. Not everything that the President has proposed is bad or harmful. Some of it has been good. Some of his reforms were necessary. And yes, the economy was in pretty bad shape when he took over.
It is true that when GW Bush was in office, the Democrats seemed to want to fight everything. However, the GOP does not have the press nor Hollywood on their side right now. That puts the GOP at a clear disadvantage.
The Republicans should wake up and realize that sometimes, they are the own worst enemy. It's hard to attract the people to your camp that you need to win elections when you act like spoiled children every single time something is not going to go your way. The nomination of John Brennan is one of those times. Let him use his drones and he will turn one of his own key constituencies against him, the ALCU. Rocky Anderson and his allies will be all over that like flies on a cow dropping. Hopefully, someone will not have to due for this to happen. Sooner or later, even with Obama in the White House, it will.
The GOP should do this; determine what the biggest two are three threats to America is and fight that. Whether it is the expanding debt, or same-sex marriage or whatever it is, and just fight that. Let the Dems and the President have some victories. The drone issue, for example, is one of those victories to let them have. The Constitution is already pretty clear on what can and can't be done without due process. Let the constitution, which you claim to believe in and support work for you. The GOP should make a stand, but this was not the time, and Rand Paul only looks foolish for doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
