View Single Post
Old November 14, 2012, 07:30 PM   #23
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,750
Originally Posted by BGutzman
The quote I put in my previous post is taken verbatum from the law so it seems they do have diplomatic immunity,...
Nope, it's not diplomatic immunity. The immunity is at the organizational level and doesn't appear to extend to accredited agents.

Originally Posted by BGutzman
...My point being if an executive order can cause a vast reinterpertation of any law then it in itself becomes a law making tool....
How do you reach that conclusion in connection with the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945? Your quarrel is with Congress (of 1945). Congress, in 1945, expressly gave that authority to the President in connection with this law. See 22 USC 288 (emphasis added):
For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “international organization” means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter....
Originally Posted by BGutzman
...Certainly EOs can and have been reviewed but have been found in a least a case or two to exceed constitutional authority. That alone tells me in my layman way that this is a potential threat to freedom...
What you see is the system working as intended.

There always has been, and always will be, disagreements about what is or is not constitutional or what a law does, or does not, mean as applied. Executive Orders have been, and no doubt will in future be, challenged, found to have been issued in excess of proper authority and consequently invalidated in whole or in part by the courts. Congress has enacted, and no doubt will in future enact, laws challenged, and found to be unconstitutional. Courts have issued ruling found to be unpalatable resulting in the enactment of laws to avoid the effects of those rulings.

That all is simply our system of "checks and balances" at work and operating as originally intended. That is why we have a separation of powers.
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Page generated in 0.03716 seconds with 7 queries