Judge Strikes President’s Authority To Designate Terrorist Groups
Posted on November 28, 2006
A federal judge has ruled that a portion of a post-Sept. 11 executive order allowing President Bush to create a list of specially designated global terrorist groups is unconstitutionally vague.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins, in a Nov. 21 ruling released Tuesday, struck down the provision and enjoined the government from blocking the assets of two foreign groups which were placed on the list.
The ruling was praised by David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights.
“This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists,” he said. “It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era.”
I should really just stop right there. The ruling is praised by a lawyer for terrorist sympathizing, Center For Constitutional Rights! The Center for Constitutional Rights is openly anti-American and pro-terrorist. Groups suspected of ties to terrorism give money to CCR. The granddaughter of the executed Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg works there! At its 2004 annual convention, the CCR honored attorney Lynne Stewart, an open supporter of terrorism, indicted by the Justice Department for abetting the terrorist activities of her client, the “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman.
A lawyer from this organization praising this decision says just about all we need to know about the ruling.
The judge outlined the history of Bush’s Executive Order 13224 issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He declared then that the “grave acts of terrorism” and the “continuing and immediate threat of future attacks” constituted a national emergency.
He blocked all property and interests in property of 27 groups or individuals named as “specially designated global terrorists (SDGT).” Bush also authorized the secretary of the treasury to designate anyone who “assists, sponsors or provides services to” or is “otherwise associated with” a designated group.
Collins found that Bush’s authority to designate SDGTs is “unconstitutionally vague on its face.” She also found that the provision involving those “otherwise associated with” the groups is vague and overbroad and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association. She struck down both provisions.
However, she let stand sections of the order that would penalize those who provide “services” to designated terrorist groups. She said such services would include the humanitarian aid and rights training proposed by the plaintiffs.
Cole said the Humanitarian Law Project will appeal those portions of the executive order which were allowed to stand. He said the judge’s ruling does not invalidate the hundreds of SDGT designations already made but “calls them into question.”
Cole said the value of the decision is it “says that even in fighting terrorism the president cannot be given a blank check to blacklist anyone he considers a bad guy or a bad group and you can’t imply guilt by association.”
Yes, if you are wondering, this judge was a Clinton appointee from 1994. One Freeper suggests The President should simply create another terrorist group by executive order: JACC….Judges Appointed by Clinton and Carter. Designate the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and several more on the list of supporters while you’re at it. Of course we are slightly overexaggerating, but we should be seeing more impeachments for insanity like this. This will probably make it to SCOTUS in appeals.
This same judge ruled parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional that barred giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations in 2004. The same plaintiff and lawyer–David Cole and the Humanitarian Law Project representing the Liberation Tigers and the PKK–were involved in that case as in the present one. Michael Radu had a thorough analysis of the 2004 ruling and the plaintiffs here.
His conclusion then holds now:
One can only hope that Judge Collins will be overruled, if not by her colleagues on the Ninth Circuit (yes, miracles do happen), then by the Supreme Court. But regardless of what happens, we can draw valuable observations from these developments. The War on Terror has numerous fronts, many of them, unfortunately, within America itself, where sympathetic lawyers, “human rights” militants and inane judges can be the most dedicated enemies to national security.
Captain Ed points out that this isn’t the first time Collins has had a problem with anti-terror legislation.
During the Clinton administration, she struck down the 1996 anti-terrorism law passed by Congress in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Collins seems to have trouble reading the law, finding all counterterrorism legislation too vague to be understood. Perhaps the problem lies with Collins more than the laws themselves.
This is another activist liberal judge who is more concerned with saying “no” to the President, than protecting us and the Constitution. This is the same judge that struck down parts of the Patriot Act 2 years ago. I will start: I am calling for the impeachment of this judge.
I’ll second that.
Others: Webloggin
Gateway Pundit
» Filed Under ACLU, Activist Judges, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
30 Responses to “Judge Strikes President’s Authority To Designate Terrorist Groups”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
No, you should dispense with the ad hominem attacks and discuss the ruling on its merits.
What merits? Since when does a Federal Judge have the authority to overrule an executive order? Isn’t that reserved for Congress and the Supreme Court?
Or lack thereof. I don’t know. I haven’t read it yet.
I’m not sure. If that’s your position, go ahead and lay it out. I just know that the ad hominem attacks are meaningless.
Maybe you should start a blog and write things the way you like them Jeff. Then I will come over and comment there without reading it.
Eventually. Until then, I enjoy contributing to your discussions.
You will be very welcome.
I skip by some of the other contributors on this site, but I read every word you write. I just haven’t digested all of the related material yet.
A federal judge did what?
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins seems to have just shredded the president’s authority to designate terrorist groups: (hat tip: John Stephenson)
Jeff M and Jay,
I am not sure that pointing to potential bias may be considered an ad hominem attack as such seems to be a legitimate exercise. Questioning the bias of a judge is considered good policy.
But even then you should point out flaws in the argument. Do you want to give a President like Clinton the ability to call any group he wants to a terrorist organization. I am sure Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc would enjoy labeling all the Pro Life groups as such since they try to do that without Presidential Authority backing them.
My objection is that it seems the Fourth Amendment would be more appropriate in this case than the First especially if the groups are still allowed to assemble.
I am assuming these are American groups as the President’s word is pretty much dominate in foreign policy unless it is an action covered by treaty or by legislation passed by Congress neither which was mentioned in this case.
Bush can?t designate groups as terrorists
A federal judge struck down President Bush’s authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his
Indeed. I’m all for questioning and examining everyone’s motives. But even if you demonstrate that everyone involved is biased and evil, that still has no bearing on the merits of the decision.
Federal Judge Strikes Down Bush Authority To Freeze Terrorist Assets
Judge Collins, a Clinton appointee, ruled in favor of claims made by lawyers for the radical far left Center for Constitutional Rights. This is the same group that released a book in 2006 titled Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.
…
Federal Judge Overrules President’s Authority to Label Groups Terrorists
After 9/11 the President signed an executive order giving him the power to label certain groups terrorists, allowing their assets to be frozen. Well, of course protecting the country isn’t what liberals are all about. It’s about giving the …
Bush Can’t Designate Terror Groups: Judge
A federal judge barred the Bush administration from specifying organizations that support terrorism for the purpose of freezing their assets and keeping funds from terrorists. US District Court Judge Audrey Collins blocked the administration from freez…
Do you want to give a President like Clinton the ability to call any group he wants to a terrorist organization. I am sure Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc would enjoy labeling all the Pro Life groups as such since they try to do that without Presidential Authority backing them.
These are foreign terrorists that Bush has designated, not domestic. As such, he has the authority and it can only be negated by Congress, not the judiciary.
Activist Judge Rules Bush Can’t Define Who Are Terrorists
Stop The ACLU AP
A federal judge has ruled that a portion of a post-Sept. 11 executive order allowing President Bush to create a list of specially designated global terrorist groups is unconstitutionally vague. U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins, in a …
Another Activist Judge’s Insane Ruling During War On Terror
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU AP A federal judge has ruled that a portion of a post-Sept. 11 executive order allowing President Bush to create a list of specially designated global terrorist groups is unconstitutionally vague. U.S. District Judge Audr…
Humanitarian Law Project Wins Right To Aid Mass Murdering Marxists
The Jawas passed on this little nugget about a court ruling that will lead to hundreds, if not thousands of death here and abroad. Basically, the Executive Branch can no longer legally designate groups that sponsor murder and other crimes for politica…
Alan Keyes in an interview on the “Mark Larson Show” stated the following in the Schiavo Florida case the following:
We’re in a situation, now, where the judiciary as such has set its face against what the society, the people, the legislature, and the Governor believe is constitutional right.
The question is, “Do the judges get to dictate, in an instance like this, what shall be our understanding of basic rights and moral requirements?”
The answer to that question, by the way, is “no.” No branch of government gets to dictate what the outcome will be, by itself, in America.
And in this particular case, with the other branches ranged against them, the judges actually have no power or authority, and it’s the executive who can act, and I think Jeb Bush ought to. He needs to simply intervene, protect this woman’s life, look the court in the eye and say, as [Andrew] Jackson did, “You’ve made your ruling. You enforce it.” They can’t enforce it, of course, because they have no executive power to do so.
And when they act in a way that contravenes the conscience of the executive, they forfeit his cooperation. And it’s about time that the executive reasserted that truth of our constitutional system. The courts do not get to act like little tyrants, in this country.
Taken from: http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/05_03_18marklarson.htm
The POINT that I am making is that a President can use “HIS CHECKS and BALANCE on the Court, by doing what Alan Keyes suggests and what President Andrew Jackson actually did and that was telling the Supreme Court “You’ve made your ruling. You enforce it.”
And the Court CAN’T for it has no executive power. It RELIES on the EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT.
Now…
If the President has the backing of the Legislative branch of Government, i.e. Congress, or the the President uses the “bully pulpit to stir the people to convince Congress to support the President and such maneuver brings Congress to support the President, then the President can effectively TRUMP the Court in his exercise of “checks and balances” upon the Court.
If on the other hand, if Congress sides with the Court, then the President faces possible censure or impeachment.
President Jackson was able to use his refusal to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling. In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees. Georgia then refused to obey the Court. President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way.
President Jackson did so without repercussion, i.e. he was not impeached.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln set up military tribunals and SUSPENDED the writ of “liberty” a/k/a habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is one of a variety of writs that may be issued to bring a party before a court or judge, having as its function the release of the party from unlawful restraint.
The following is taken from http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/Lincoln.htm
“The actual right of habeas corpus is not stated anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The authors of these documents apparently believed that habeas corpus was such a fundamental liberty that it needed no further guarantee in writing. The only mention of the writ of habeas corpus in the Constitution relates to when it can be taken away from judges. In a section limiting the powers of Congress (Art. I, Sec. 9), the Constitution states: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in causes of rebellion or invasion of the public safety may require it.”
This suspension clause was never activated through the terms of the first 15 presidents. Then during the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus without consulting Congress. In doing so, Lincoln enabled the military to arrest and imprison thousands of civilians, including Clement L. Vallandigham.
Lincolns first order suspending the writ of liberty applied only to Maryland, a border state sympathetic to the South that virtually surrounded Washington, D.C. Shortly after, Lincoln issued this suspension order, Union troops arrested a Maryland man for helping to organize a pro-Confederate militia. Following his arrest, he was imprisoned at Fort McHenry. Trying to gain his freedom, the prisoner appealed to a federal court in Baltimore for a writ of habeas corpus. But when a federal judge issued the writ, the military officers at Fort McHenry refused to obey it. They said Lincolns suspension order made the writ worthless.
On September 24, 1862, Lincoln issued a proclamation unprecedented in American history. He suspended the writ of liberty everywhere in the United States. The suspension applied to Confederate spies or to those who aided the rebel cause, interfered with military enlistments, resisted the draft, or were “guilty of any disloyal practice.” This last offense allowed the military to arrest newspaper editors and speakers critical of the Union war effort. Lincoln further ordered that persons arrested under his proclamation were subject to martial law, which meant they would be tried and punished by military courts.”
Another excerpt:
“In response to widespread criticism of his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the banishment of Vallandigham, Lincoln wrote a long letter to Democratic Party leaders defending his actions. Lincoln declared that the regular civilian courts were inadequate during a rebellion. He claimed that those opposing the Unions cause endangered “the public safety.” Ordinarily, he wrote, such people could not be arrested since criticizing the government was not a criminal offense. If such persons were arrested, they would undoubtedly be released on a writ of habeas corpus by a civilian court judge. The necessary solution, Lincoln argued, was to suspend the writ and lock up the troublemakers until the war ended.
As for Vallandigham, Lincoln charged that he was encouraging desertions from the Union army. “Must I shoot a simpleminded soldier boy who deserts,” Lincoln asked, “while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?”
After Vallandigham was banished to the South, his friends went to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to convince the justices to hear the case. On February 15, 1864, the Supreme Court announced it would refuse to hear the case, saying that it had no authority to review the proceedings of a martial law court. While the bloody Civil War raged on, the Supreme Court decided it was not the time to challenge the power of General Burnside or his commander-in-chief, Abraham Lincoln.”
End of excerpt.
Lincoln exercised his executive power as President and the Supreme Court was “effectively checked” by a President wherein the balance of power at the time rested more with the executive branch of government instead of the judicial branch and the Supreme Court did not want to take on President Lincoln. Had the Supreme Court taken the challenge and ruled against President Lincoln, it has been conjectured by some that Lincoln would have “ignored the ruling”. The Supreme Court could not risk that possibility.
Now the pendulum has swung to where the US Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, and the various District Courts, i.e. the Judicial Branch, have effectively more power than the Commander in Chief, i.e. the Executive Branch. It appears that the Court is the only branch of government that is no longer restrained by the doctrine of “checks and balances”.
Moral of the Story?
A President can take on the Courts. It has been done. But it takes a strong President with the WILL to do so and/or by one who can effectively communicate to the American people using the “bully pulpit” to garner support. Such acts by the Executive Branch is a legitimate form of “checks and balances” upon the Courts. Legitimacy of such act by the Executive branch depends and/or rests on whether or not the President is successful in doing so.
As to the current balance of power between the three branches of government, I would argue that the Executive branch, i.e. the Office of President, is the weakest. The pendulum has swung strongly towards the direction of the Courts.
Only time will tell, whether or not, a President will arise in the future to reverse the swing of said pendulum away from the Courts back towards the President and/or Congress by acting more like an Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln.
But I don’t expect President Bush to be such a man, particularly after the recent Congressional elections. We can only pray in this situation that the appellate court will reverse the district court’s ruling striking down President Bush’s authority to designate groups as terrorists.
Unlike Jackson and/or the threat posed by Lincoln due to the power of his Presidency where the Court would not challenge Lincoln, Bush will cooperate with the Courts if the ruling of the district court is upheld.
Bush will not say as Jackson did, it’s your ruling you enforce it!!!!
No doubt. The checks and balances are structured so that any one branch can defy another branch, so long as the third abstains from the controversy. But in order for the government as a whole to do its job, this should be the exception, not the rule. Outright defiance should be reserved for extraordinary situations.
Clinton-Appointed Judge: Bush Can’t Designate Terror Groups
Federal Judge Rules Bush’s Post-Sept. 11 Terror Order Unconstitutional LOS ANGELES — A federal judge struck down President Bush’s authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague, …
Jeff M,
I do not believe it would be necessary in this case since it can be appealed and the President can enter a plea for a judicial stay with the Court of Appeals that should have a very good chance of being heard since allowing a circuit court to have more authority is not a wise Precedent to set.
Making the World Safe (for terror)
A federal judge struck down President Bush’s authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutionally vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday. The Humanitarian Law Project had challenged Bush’…
MSM engaged in running gun-battle with U.S. Forces
Has there ever been a time in American history that the Department of Defense (or its predecessor, the War Department) was forced to mount “information operations” against the mainstream media? I strongly encourage all bloggers to link to the DOD’s…
Fed Judge Strips Bush’s Authority to Designate Terrorist Groups
This warrants impeachment. There is a difference between a controversial ruling and ignorant judicial activism. This is obviously the latter.
[...] Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: Law/Judiciary, Disturbing News, Other US Courts | EMail This Post | Print This Post |    Trackback URI for this post:http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/11/29/about-that-federal-judge-who-ruled-that-bush-cant-designate-terrorist-groups/trackback/ » [...]
Judge strikes down Bush on terror groups
If his executive order was vague, then why does he not issue another one being more specific, and including this judge and her support of terrorist organizations.
Los Angeles Federal Judge Rules To Support Financial Assistance To Terrorist Groups
Judge Collins is the same judge that struck down a section of the law that prohibits anyone from providing “expert advice or assistance” to any group that the US State Department decides to place on its list of “terrorist organizations.”
[...] This time ruling that the President shouldn’t be allowed to designate terrorist groups: A federal judge has ruled that a portion of a post-Sept. 11 executive order allowing President Bush to create a list of specially designated global terrorist groups is unconstitutionally vague. [...]
[...] Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Judge Strikes President’s Authority To Designate Terrorist Groups A federal judge has ruled that a portion of a post-Sept. 11 executive order allowing President Bush to create a list of specially designated global terrorist groups is unconstitutionally vague. [...]
TNOYF Exclusive: AP Responds To “Sunni Six” Burning Allegations
The Associated Press released a statement late Wednesday evening to The Nose On Your Face regarding their confidential sources from the recent Sunni Six burning incident in Iraq. An AP spokesman speaking, ironically enough, on condition of anonymity sa…
[...] The Center for Constitutional Rights would know all about the “McCarthy Era”. The spawn of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg is employed there. [...]