Is the NDAA Unconstitutional?

Is the NDAA Unconstitutional? Should the US government be able to detain it's citizens without due process?

 

Now I know you are out there dujac and that you defend everything Obama has ever done in his life. So why not come out and defend him on this one?

Are you skeered?

 

First, we have to make up our minds as citizens. What level of security/safety do we want... at what cost?

Secondly, we actively advocate (through those who represent us) for what is reasonable (compromise is required).

We should not be at one another's throats on this forever; that's just a formula for 'suck'.

 

1. Yes
2. No

/thread

 

I didn't ask your opinion on the NDAA. I asked if it was Constitutional. It's not.

The President swore to uphold the Constitution. He is thus impeachable.

If you fascists wish to change the Constitution, there is a process for that. The process is not to ignore it.

 

It is interesting that no Obama supporters will come out and defend it as Constitutional.

However, they still support their guy. It speaks volumes.

 

It's interesting how people on both sides support the NDAA and more. I just don't understand them.

 

The GOP is in love with the NDAA and the DNC is no different. This results in neither party holding Obama to the Constitution, because neither party gives a damn about the Constitution. It is a government without checks and balances.

It is astounding that no one can argue that Obama violated his vow to uphold the Constitution by signing it into law, but no one is calling him on it, not even Rand Paul. It is very telling.

 

This is one thing both the progressive left and the libertarian right agree on. I do not believe that the U.S. government can detain citizens without due process.

 

However since most of Congress voted for NDAA, and first Bush and then Obama signed it, I highly doubt that you would ever see it used as an article of impeachment.

Now you and I both believe that much of NDAA is unconstitutional, but that shared opinion and $8 bucks will get us both a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Only the Courts can determine if it is Unconstitutional. And based on the current makeup of the SCOTUS do you really think NDAA's constitutionality would even be heard unless a lower court declared it unconstitutional? I see the following votes to uphold it. Thomas, Alieto, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Kagan. Scalia, in my opinion would be the one most likely to declare it unconstitutional, and possibly Sotomayor and Breyer. But I would not bet a dime that any of those three would vote to declare it unconstitutional.

 

Which NDAA?

I'm assuming you are referring to section 1031 of the 2012 NDAA.

Yes I think it's unconstitutional, but since Obama has pinkie sweared not to use it, we may not get a constitutional test case to see for sure.

 

That's right. For SCOTUS to hear the case, the law has to be used. Then again, if it is used, who would ever know?...............

As the church lady would say, how conveeeeenient.

 

I don't really believe that the courts would overturn it. I'm certain that the whole lot of them are on the same page here as with most everything else. Checks and balances are no more.

Sure, the GOP could impeach Obama, but they won't. What does that tell ya?

 

Accustom yourself to strife.

 

like I said, too many of them voted to pass NDAA to use Obama's signing of it grounds for impeachment.

 

A lot of things may or may not seem "Constitutional" to us laymen; just wait until the Supreme Court gets their hands on it. (Back to the drawing board.)

 

But if they detain you without due process, you simply disappear. Who will reveal that the law has been implemented in order to even bring it to SCOTUS?

Secondly, previous decisions like Dred Scott, an obvious violation of the Constitution, show us that SCOTUS is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the powers that be.

 

As the saying goes, the law is only as good as the will to enforce it.

Laws are meant to keep the powerless in line. That is their only function.

 

What the NDAA is law? I haven't been paying attention sorry. That last I seem Obama said on TV that he would NOT sign it. So how did that happen?

 

That I would disagree with. They are also meant to give people recourse when they are harmed by others. No society larger than a small tribe can successfully exist without laws and regulations governing their behavior and responsibilities towards each other.

 

It's magic!!

 

People with power have a higher tendency to evade the law. Just look at people like Michael Jackson or Richard Nixon.

I honestly think that if Nixon were alive today, he would not have been forced to resign. All he did was try to break into a room to steal information. Now the President has such information about everything and everyone, and no one gives a damn.

View attachment 20536

 

Wow the more I look into Obama singing the NDAA that he said he wouldn't the more things start to look shady. http://youtu.be/kKfyao7ABME
From what I hear here Obama fought for the fact that American would BE included in the bill. Why should he fight to put wording in a bill he said we wouldn't sign.

 

All I can figure is that the Tea Party made him do it.

 

So wait let me get a hold of this. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Obama said he would not sign it.
At the same time he was adding wording that stated all of Americans could be detained without a trial.
On top of that. At the same time he was saying he wasn't going to sign it his lawyers were fighting for it on his behave.
Could Someone please explain this to me.