Why is the NDAA not being reviewed by the Supremes in terms of its Contitutionality? It was passed with overwhelming support from both the GOP and the Democrats. Shocking, isn't it? This act seemingly violates the right to trial garaunteed by the 5th Amendment and possibly the 1rst Amendment as people withdraw in fear of speaking their minds, knowing they could be detained indefinately without trial.
From my observations with the Supremes in the past, they seem not to want to rock the boat to much and uphold the status quo of the powers that be. As a result, I predict that if they were to hear the case, they would not overturn it. Nonetheless, it would be highly entertaining watching them play that game of twister.
So what say you sh76 and No1? Even though you appear to lean in different directions politically, I think you both detest this peice of legislation Obama signed into being to some degree. In fact, I've never run across anyone who defends this legislation, yet, it is as if no one wishes to challenge it.
Why?
Originally posted by whodeyGoogle the title of this thread. Or just read this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11416-federal-judge-blocks-feds-from-enforcing-indefinite-detention-provisions-of-ndaa
Why is the NDAA not being reviewed by the Supremes in terms of its Contitutionality? It was passed with overwhelming support from both the GOP and the Democrats. Shocking, isn't it? This act seemingly violates the right to trial garaunteed by the 5th Amendment and possibly the 1rst Amendment as people withdraw in fear of speaking their minds, knowing they ...[text shortened]... s anyone who defends this legislation, yet, it is as if no one wishes to challenge it.
Why?
Originally posted by no1marauderBut how would we ever know it was used? I thought that people were denied due process, so how are we to know if people are not being arrested and detained?
Google the title of this thread. Or just read this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11416-federal-judge-blocks-feds-from-enforcing-indefinite-detention-provisions-of-ndaa
The bizzare aspect to all this is that both parties support the legislation, when no one else on earth seems to, yet the law is still on the books.
Originally posted by no1marauder"The surest solution to unconstitutional acts of Congress or edicts of the executive is to apply the principles of nullification."
Google the title of this thread. Or just read this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11416-federal-judge-blocks-feds-from-enforcing-indefinite-detention-provisions-of-ndaa
Next to last paragraph of New American article. What say you to the principle of nullification?
Originally posted by normbenignIt's unconstitutional. See the Supremacy Clause or Google 1865.
"The surest solution to unconstitutional acts of Congress or edicts of the executive is to apply the principles of nullification."
Next to last paragraph of New American article. What say you to the principle of nullification?
The Hamilton quote used was referring to judicial review not nullification.
I just can't believe Obama taught Contitutional law, and then signed the the NDAA. It only goes to show me that he has no interest in the Constitution or upholding it. To me he is just a little tyrant. Obanmacare was no different, it should have met its end as well.
Originally posted by whodeyHow much Constitutional Law have you studied, whodey?
I just can't believe Obama taught Contitutional law, and then signed the the NDAA. It only goes to show me that he has no interest in the Constitution or upholding it. To me he is just a little tyrant. Obanmacare was no different, it should have met its end as well.
Originally posted by whodeySHENANIGANS!
I just can't believe Obama taught Contitutional law, and then signed the the NDAA. It only goes to show me that he has no interest in the Constitution or upholding it. To me he is just a little tyrant. Obanmacare was no different, it should have met its end as well.
YOU said it was Robertscare now. LIAR!
ðŸ˜
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is not about me, it is about the NDAA. So let me hear your opinion. Is the NDAA a violation of the Constitution? I have yet to hear anyone defend it other than both parties, so perhaps you might want to be the first.
How much Constitutional Law have you studied, whodey?
Originally posted by whodeyI made my opinion known when Obama signed it: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=144285&page=&page=1
This is not about me, it is about the NDAA. So let me hear your opinion. Is the NDAA a violation of the Constitution? I have yet to hear anyone defend it other than both parties, so perhaps you might want to be the first.