Bushbama has issued his NDAA Signing Statement: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540 Here is mine: Americans must not be distracted by Corporate Fascist Puppet Barack Obama saying "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" in his signing statement for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R.1540). Presidential "signing statements" are political propaganda with no Constitutional basis. A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill, and along with them should be charged with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Unless and until these vermin are arrested, charged and removed from office, I will no longer consider the government they infest to be legitimate. No more Left. No more Right. Time to Unite. Stand and Fight! IronBoltBruce http://occupywallst.org/forum/ndaa-2012-obama-uses-new-years-eve-as-cover-to-ush/ Related Image: http://lancewig.com/sites/default/files/enslaved.jpg ### VVV PR (vvvpr@vvvpr.com|@vvvpr) http://VeritasVirtualVengeance.com
Seems the only ones who should be worried are the terrorists and the terrorist supporters (not naming names ) Besides, if it is unconstitutional, the USSC will overrule it. Right?
What an *******, I have said it before and I'll say it again, Obama s like Bush with lube, except it seems like the KY is running out. C U next tuesday
I will say this too, I give the right a pretty hard time ... we don't see eye to eye on almost anything, but right now I think the left needs to drop the partisan blinkers and call Obama out on this one. Anyone from the left who defends this is full of (*)(*)(*)(*) IMHO
I've been awake. Congress and Presidents always push legislation that is eventually found unconstitutional. That's why we have 3 separate areas of government. I mean, is anyone surprised? We have the unconstitutional Obamacare and now this. However, terrorists are the ones who really should worry about this.
Yes, but one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" in this ever-changing political landscape. And you do make a valid point about Obamacare, which is unconstitutional in its construction. The resulting, troubling question becomes: Why does anything as obviously wrong as Obamacare is have to go all the way to SCOTUS before it can be thrown out? We Americans do tolerate bad legislation; we do tolerate activist judges who overturn the will of the people; we do turn a blind eye toward autocratic presidents, and both Bush and Obama have at times fit this description, and all with the "best of intentions", no doubt....
It's always been that way. However, the USA has it right. I agree and the only thing I can do is keep voting anti-incumbent. Both parties suck and both parties seem to lack a true moral compass.
Very good stuff. I say vote all the relics out. After all, they got the USA into the mess we are in. They do no work. No tike, no laundry.
hope you don't get labeled a terrorist. there is no justification for solutions outside the realm of the constitution.
Why have a Supreme Court at all if it can't overturn the will of the people. Just take a frigging poll.
While it is true that the SC should rule it unconstitutional, the fact that this even passed Congress and the President should be a warning sign to all.
The Patriot Act passed, and while it didn't affect me personally, that doesn't mean we should continue voting for politicians that support these measures. The NDAA takes it a step further. If SOPA and the Protect IP Act pass, we can't really call ourselves free anymore.
I'm with you, Phoebe... NO court, no matter how "supreme" it is, should be able to throw out the will of the majority of the citizens of this country! What's the point of having a Congress if a clot of stinking activist judges can rearrange our statutes to suit their own philosophies, prejudices, and preferences.
I'm afraid you've misread my post. The SC is not supposed to bend to the will of the people. It's supposed to interpret the Constitution as written but, of course, the Constitution is poorly written and cannot cover every contingency anyway. The congress is a ship of fools. Lately it has taken to repealing laws that haven't even been proposed.
Well, I share you opinion about many of those in the Congress. And it's true that many people seem to have a difficult time with the Constitution these days. In the 18th Century, people spoke, and wrote, a much more elegant form of English than we do today. The greater problem arises, though, when contemporary, activist judges try to infer that the Constitution permits alterations and alternate interpretations that were never intended in either the English of the 18th Century, or of that we speak and write today....
Because in some instances the elite are needed to shepherd the people. Where would civil rights be without all the federal action taken to ensure minority rights? Have you ever read Tocqueville, heard of the "tyranny of the majority"? What happens when the majority is wrong? It is in these instances that the Supreme Court is supposed to influence public morals and actions. Now can this power be abused? Absolutely. However I do not find the intentions of the system flawed, only the people who serve in it. As for NDAA...weren't any of you reading? They already had the power to detain people who are thought to be terrorists under AUMF in 2001. Not saying that I agree with the bill but they already had they power before Obama... http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
I agree with you to an extent. Perhaps no better example of the "tyranny of the majority" has existed in the past 100 years than Nazi Germany. But even those horrible wrongs flowed down from one very bad revision to the German constitution: the adoption of the "Enabling Act", which gave the Chancellor the power to override German Law in the interest of "national security".... Again, we should root ourselves in the exact wording of the U. S. Constitution! Everything necessary to promote American civil rights is written into it and its amendments. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution supporting "affirmative action", or, as others refer to it, "reverse discrimination"! Is that a "tyranny of the majority", too? Like I said, "One man's terrorist is another man's 'freedom fighter'." Crass revisionism causes more injustice than the will of the people....
