I have made my thoughts on sanctions in the past….and now I would like to offer up another thought….this one from a FOX News pundit…..Napolitano…..keep in mind these are HIS thoughts not mine…..personally anyone that listens or believes anything from FOX News is basically adding to the confusion and misinformation (but that is me)……
For those that would like to check my thoughts on sanctions then by all means jump to my previous post….
Is Sanctions The Answer?
The US and most of the rest of the world has put into place crippling sanctions against Russia and its oligarchs….Napolitano says that these sanctions violate the US Constitution….
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration has undertaken a vast scheme against Russian economic actors, which it characterizes as “sanctions.” The scheme consists in seizing assets, freezing assets, and prohibiting lawful and constitutionally protected commercial transactions.
All of this is aimed at dissuading Russian President Vladimir Putin from his determination to use extreme state violence to neutralize the government of Ukraine and install a government more favorable to the Kremlin. Yet, the targets of these sanctions are neither Putin nor the Russian state. Rather, his friends and political supporters, as well as Russian banks and commercial entities, and even American banks and commercial entities, have been targeted – and hundreds of millions of consumers and investors have been harmed.
By prohibiting the use of assets and international money transfers, the sanctions have severely harmed folks in Russia who have nothing to do with Putin’s war by radically reducing their purchasing power and eliminating many everyday choices from their spending options. All of this was done by presidential edict.
Can the president constitutionally prevent Americans and foreign persons from the lawful use of their own assets and from engaging freely in lawful commercial transactions? In a word: No.
Sanctions on Russia Violate the Constitution
Now you have what a FOX pundit thinks…..do you agree?
Make your thoughts known!
Watch This Blog!
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
In Saner Thought 
Constitutional or not in theory, these are not ‘ordinary times’. It was not constitutional to inter many Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbour, but hardly anyone complained about that at the time, because they were now at war with Japan. Again, they were not ‘ordinary times’.
Best wishes, Pete.
I agree….I have a post on those interments chuq
Good question, and probably one that has never been asked of SCOTUS. I’ve long wondered the same sort of thing when the government prohibited travel of Americans to Cuba.
I too would like a clarification to Napolitano’s assertion…..chuq
Seems to me the real expression of our Constitution is in the area of any of us being able to challenge presidential decrees, legislation, and/or your neighbor objecting to you standing in your yard picking your nose, in a court of law… with legal interpretation as it relates to the Constitution rendered by a judge and jury.
What our Brit buddy, Pete, cited as an example above (nice job, btw).. I am not aware that decree was ever challenged in a court of law.. but… it very likely could have fallen on Congressional emergency powers given to a president in times of a declared emergency… which by that time war had already been declared. That does not mean that decree could not have been challenged in a court of law, but rather any judgement rendered would be according to the emergency powers granted by Congress, and not according to the Bill of Rights. A national emergency takes precedent and generally has a short term, until the passing of the emergency.
To Napolitano’s statement…
“Can the president constitutionally prevent Americans and foreign persons from the lawful use of their own assets and from engaging freely in lawful commercial transactions? In a word: No.”
That’s opinion based entirely on his own interpretation of what is legal or not… even if you are a lawyer. Legal or not, the decision goes on if not challenged.
Now.. if you are someone like Trump, you can play the system. Pass any sort of decree you wish… and let the courts sort it all out later. Until then he gets his way unless a challenge incurs an injunction. Point being, time is on Trump’s side.
I have made my feelings on sanctions….to me they are a waste of time…..they seem to never work the way all hope…..Cuba, Iran, etc not any good comes out only suffering for the average person. chuq
Well, chuq, let me ask this… you don’t like sanctions, you hate the prospect of war (as do many of us), what then is the direction toward peace if one side or the other refuses a diplomatic end?
I say sanctions do not work the way they are intended…..the UN would be the answer if there was no Security Council where all diplomacy goes to die…..as long as the worse countries have control then it is a dead issue…war is the only answer for humans. chuq
Yeah, I always tend to lean toward the UN.. and for the most part they seldom stand up to my expectations.. other than just being a forum for talk… and maybe that serves a greater purpose.
War is always the human option… but it doesn’t necessarily mean an absolute option. Have faith, buddy.
The UN would be more effective without the worse offenders having final veto over the proceedings….the US, Russia, China then France and UK….the worse offenders control the dialog….chuq
Doug you might find this article interesting…..https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/international-law-is-a-meaningless?s=r
Be well chuq
Thanks for the link. You can add the U.S. not being a signatory to Interpol.. nor are there agreements with host nations that American service personnel can be detained and tried for capitol offences as we prefer to punish our own. Now, there is context to all that. It’s not just all about “we are morally superior to judge our own”. But rather our system of justice we consider is part of why our people serve in other countries.
I’ve listened to a couple of these Hague prosecutors and there are very specific charges and not some “it’s illegal” generalizations. These people investigate intent.. through chains of command. Deaths attributed to more collateral damage don’t count as “illegal” or “genocide”. They need to prove a decision was directly made to kill civilians.
So just stating an assertion that some action was “illegal” doesn’t necessarily make it so.
I know….I think the UN would be a better organization if the UNSC was taken down and all nations if they sign the UN charter also sign on to the ICC…..nations that do not recognize the ICC are the worse purveyors of war of death and destruction and do not want to be held accountable for the involvement.
Glad to help out when I can Be well chuq
Reblogged this on NEW BLOG HERE >> https:/BOOKS.ESLARN-NET.DE.
Thanx….sanctions are for show in my opinion. chuq