Seizing Private Property For 'Emergencies'

We've seen alot of abuse of power in the name of "emergency." Notice carefully what the AT&T CEO said to the Congress on the NSA wiretapping: "It was lawful." Yet, a close reading of the 18 USC 1802 shows us that the AG, and others, can create all sorts of non-sense to classify as an emergency.

Why would the President assert a "protection" for something that was already in the Constitution -- the right to have our property? The answer isn't what he's asserting, but the false emergency and exception he could invoke to justify seizing private property.



Bush wrote an exception, which in light of the NSA-SWIFT revelations, should be noted carefully:

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:
. . .
(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.Ref

* * *

In light of how the Executive defines "emergencies" to justify the NSA-SWIFT activity {domestic, warrantless interrogations), we can only wonder:

What will the President defines as a "public safety" issue

How with the 3rd Amendment, which prohibits the housing of troops in private homes, be ignored

What is the actual intended use of this statute, in light of the abuse of power we've seen with the NSA-SWIFT issues.

* * *

I encourage you to carefully review the proclomation Charles I gave.

After reading for the past week the proclamations, the above sent chills: It is strangely similar to what Charles I did -- asserted a right, only to abuse the public trust, and defy his clearly stated words.

Beware!

Read carefully