King George Grants Himself More Powers

Are you familiar with the Fifth Amendment?  President Bush is hoping you aren’t.  That’s why on both July 17th and August 2nd he decided to give himself more powers that fly right in the face of the Fifth Amendment.

For those who don’t remember, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that "No person shall … be deprived of … property, without due process of law."  On July 17th, Bush signed an Executive Order that authorized the Treasury Department (at his direction) to be able to seize any and all property belonging to individuals who "pose a significant risk" of committing violent acts that undermine the "peace or stability" of Iraq. The action does not require congressional approval.  Then on August 2nd, he further authorized the Treasury to "block the property and interests in property" of "any U.S. persons" (including "a spouse or dependent child") who challenge "the sovereignty of Lebanon" (i.e., support Syria’s occupation of Lebanon and its interference in Lebanese politics) ((Slate Magazine, August 6th 2007, "Did Bush Repeal the Fifth Amendment?")).

Does this scare you even a little?  It should.  Republicans and neocons will argue that these Executive Orders are merely tools to help fight the "war on terror" and the insurgents in Iraq.  They will say that I am being paranoid, but I don’t think I am.  Here’s why: did you notice that these Executive Orders can be used against American citizens?  That revokes or limits the rights given to us under the Fifth Amendment.

Call me old fashioned, but I don’t believe that the President should have the power to revoke or limit our Constitutional rights without approval by Congress.  Our forefathers set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch of government (Executive, Congressional, or Judicial) had too much power.  They were very careful and deliberate in writing these safeguards into the Constitution.  By issuing the Executive Orders, Bush has given himself powers that the Constitution, i.e. the law of the land, does not provide him.

This is not new for the Bush Administration.  Bush has shown little regard to the Constitution in the past, but how much more are we going to let him get away with?  He is slowly but surely turning the Executive branch all-powerful, and in doing so, transforms himself from being our President to being our King.

P.S.  Did anyone else see this being covered by the mainstream media?  Me neither.  I guess Lindsay Lohan’s latest antics are much more relevant to our lives than the erosion of our Constitution rights.

11 Responses to King George Grants Himself More Powers

  1. Phillip says:

    You know, you kind of have to hand it to Bush. This “war on terror” is the best thing that could have happened to the deprivation of rights. Any time he wants something and people question him all he has to do is claim that it’s part of the war on terror.

    He has given himself (and Congress granted it back when the whole “let’s pretend we’re unified” movement was going on) the ability to remove anyone else from the entire process of making decisions. He can basically do whatever he wants and no one can say anything to him because he has the perfect retort: “I need to do this to fight terror and if you disagree with me, you’re a terrorist…”

    Whoever came up with that idea was a genius…

  2. Scott-O-Rama says:

    I think that would be either Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney. Bush is not smart enough to have figured it out himself.

  3. Phillip says:

    I would never give Bush that kind of credit…obviously it was someone within his camp.

  4. Jay Denton says:

    I agree with the response above. Where do we draw the line of what we can or cannot do in the name of the war on terror?

  5. vuboq says:

    Like I said in a previous comment, nothing this administration does surprises me anymore. In fact, it’s almost difficult to get angry … like, why bother wasting the energy? It won’t change anything. I eagerly await the elections.

    ps. I’m trying to leave a comment (from work!) using the google translate proxy thing you suggested, scott. I hope it works :-)

  6. Scott-O-Rama says:

    In fact, it’s almost difficult to get angry … like, why bother wasting the energy? It won’t change anything.


    That’s precisely the response Bush and his cronies are hoping you’ll have.

    Here’s something simple you can do: CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN/WOMAN!!! Demand that Bush be impeached. Congress seems to think that the American public doesn’t care whether Bush is impeached or not. Tell them different.

  7. Howard says:

    So stating your opinion insures that you have no access to your hard-earned possessions? I’m beginning to think that Bush is a avid fan of Alan Moore, but is missing the point. He thinks of it as instructions, not a statement showing where our actions could take us.

    This administration has created such a cloud of fear that some people are afraid to raise their voices. I don’t know about you, but I’ve signed a bunch of petitions and written letters to my government officials and am proud to say that I’m probably on several lists at this point and fully expect my debit card to stop working at any time. Good thing I end up having to live check-to-check.

  8. Scott-O-Rama says:


    Yeah… I just waiting to get a knock on my door and be carried off with a hood over my head.

    Speaking of CIA abductions, have you seen the trailer for Rendition yet?

  9. dawei says:

    Reading about these things always makes me think of that famous quote from Jefferson. From The Jefferson Library:

    “Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.”

    Funny thing is, it isn’t even Jefferson’s.

    “The earliest source of this quote actually seems to be Benjamin Franklin. The original quote is as follows: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Franklin first said this in the Pennsylvania Assembly’s November 11, 1755 reply to the Governor, and it appears in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin v. 6, p. 242 (ed. Labaree). You can see a slightly altered version at This quote also appears on the Statue of Liberty.”

    That, and I’ve now convinced my congressman I’m a stark raving lunatic. But I think that still leaves me ahead of Bush.

    Anybody know about immigration procedures to Canada?

  10. Scott-O-Rama says:


    Waaay ahead of you on that move to Canada. Vancouver? Toronto? Montreal? Quebec? Unfortunately I can’t speak French (yet) so I’d have to go to an English-speaking part of the country.

    That quote is one of the ones that pop-up in the quotable section of my sidebar. I attributed it to Ben Franklin.

  11. TheFabulousThomasJ. says:

    And while we’re at it, let’s start lighting some fires beneath the tails of some of these media outlets.

    Enough of the Lindsay/Britney/Paris/Nicole meltdowns!

    (No wonder Amy Winehouse’s “Rehab” is one of the most popular tunes in the nation right now ; ) )



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: