Obama Demands Court Uphold His “Right” To Ignore Constitution

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Jun 10, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Obama’s Department of Justice is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people.

    On May 16th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

    Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority, government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”

    And when asked by the judge what it meant to be an “associated force”, Obama’s lawyers “…claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of [the] term, or clear boundaries of the president’s power under [the] law.” In short, it is the federal government’s scheme that the Act remain so vague that a corrupt and power-hungry Administration may imprison virtually anyone it considers a threat to its pursuit of absolute power.\

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-demands-court-uphold-his-right-to-ignore-constitution/
     
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    In early 2015 after the elections of 2014, there will be a lot of books about Obama's authoritarian personality and his insatiable desire to control everything and his inability to be cordial with his opponents or even allow them to speak. As a Professor of Constitutional Law at the leading University of Chicago, Obama knows very well what he was doing under NDAA and wanted to use the vague definition for his purposes of circumvention of the law. I am thinking that he will become obscure in retirement, much like Jimmy Carter. Obama wants no debate on his ideas.
     
  3. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    212
    Let us not forget what the "creator" of the Patriot Act has recently said about NSA monitoring of cell phones: It's not what he intended for the Act to do.

    Why should we think any law, when vague and open to wide interpretation, *especially* including the NDAA, would not be subject to similar abuse?
     

Share This Page

Loading...