4 ms·

Unfortunately, there was an Executive Order[1] signed by Obama in 2015 that "Blocks the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enab

Unfortunately, there was an Executive Order[1] signed by Obama in 2015 that "Blocks the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities". Section 2 states: "I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order." Where Snowden, or people similar to him, fall within the category of persons described within Section 1. [1]:https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...

rhacker 7y ago
EOs shouldn't be able affect that.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  Unfortunately, our inept Congress decided over the years to cede so much of their governing ability to the president. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that executive authority is quite vast and grows each year.
  - rhacker 7y ago
    I mean yeah, they might be able to arrest someone. The unfortunate aspect is that it is now up to the arrested person to tell the judge that they were arrested because of an executive order which only applies to the rules that govern federal agencies - and that they, and higher courts alone can overturn that order (or the act of arrest due to the order).
    - jethro_tell 7y ago
      Which is probably a blocker for a large number of people. That would very much mess with my family as I don't have anyone to help with my kids while I'm indisposed. It also makes it awkward for companies to accept donations on his behalf which will lessen access to many people. This stuff is never to block all transactions, it's to limit them to only a few and cut the flow substantially.
colejohnson66 7y ago
With the Citizen’s United case being a thing, how is that even legal? The Supreme Court has ruled that donations are speech.
sachdevap 7y ago
Someone tell Trump that Obama signed that Executive Order. It will be struck right down.

rhacker 7y ago

EOs shouldn't be able affect that.

mywittyname 7y ago
Unfortunately, our inept Congress decided over the years to cede so much of their governing ability to the president. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that executive authority is quite vast and grows each year.
- rhacker 7y ago
  I mean yeah, they might be able to arrest someone. The unfortunate aspect is that it is now up to the arrested person to tell the judge that they were arrested because of an executive order which only applies to the rules that govern federal agencies - and that they, and higher courts alone can overturn that order (or the act of arrest due to the order).
  - jethro_tell 7y ago
    Which is probably a blocker for a large number of people. That would very much mess with my family as I don't have anyone to help with my kids while I'm indisposed. It also makes it awkward for companies to accept donations on his behalf which will lessen access to many people. This stuff is never to block all transactions, it's to limit them to only a few and cut the flow substantially.

colejohnson66 7y ago

With the Citizen’s United case being a thing, how is that even legal? The Supreme Court has ruled that donations are speech.

sachdevap 7y ago

Someone tell Trump that Obama signed that Executive Order. It will be struck right down.