You are here: Home / Blogs / Coachisright / Judge strikes down NDAA, rules Obama must

[Justified]

Can you say police state...

"In a considerable setback for a president eager to ravage the due process rights of the American people, Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, striking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5th Amendment rights.

Signed very quietly into law on New Year’s Eve, the controversial Act has been roundly criticized as unconstitutional by groups on both the political left and right. Of greatest concern was Section 1021, which grants the United States military authority to exercise police powers on American soil. Upon order of the president and at his sole discretion, agents of the military are empowered to detain “until the end of hostilities” anyone the president believes to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”"

found: Judge strikes down NDAA, rules Obama must obey Constitution

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Badey]

It is getting scary out there... We just lost our 1A rights wherever the secret service is present too... I hope the courts strike that down as well.

[Justified]

I don't understand why these stories are not discussed more!?!? The stripping away of our constitutional rights is far more important and interesting than 90% of what is on the news.

[suntzu]

It is getting scary out there... We just lost our 1A rights wherever the secret service is present too... I hope the courts strike that down as well.

That ain't going to happen anytime soon. I beleive you are talking about USC Title 18, Section 871, which was established in 1917, prohibiting threats against the president or a successor.

[Guest1]

H.R.347,O just signed into law,no protesting within hearing distance of S.S.agents.for anyone that has ever been to an event with S.S.protection,this can extend out to 800 meters.

That ain't going to happen anytime soon. I beleive you are talking about USC Title 18, Section 871, which was established in 1917, prohibiting threats against the president or a successor.

[Sig 210]

Its all about political trash in an election year. Yep, lets all blame Obama for signing a bill that contains putrid stuff his opponents in the US congress inserted. Far out US senators Inhofe and Sessions inserted a poison pill into the NDAA . This was an attempt to force a veto of the defense appropriations bill and score political points by claiming Obasma is "weak on defense".


The presidents signing statement:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House


More:

Defense Bill Would Make America A Battlefield | Disinformation

The dumb Okie voters will continue to vote for the Inhofe idiot until he croaks.

[suntzu]

H.R.347,O just signed into law,no protesting within hearing distance of S.S.agents.for anyone that has ever been to an event with S.S.protection,this can extend out to 800 meters.

I just read the text of the origianl law and the one just signed(they both suck so don't get me wrong). But where does it say about 800 meters and hearing distance? The new bill is almost identical to the original except some wording which is significant