Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 02 Jul '12 01:35
    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?
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 Jul '12 01:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    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?
    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
  3. 02 Jul '12 02:12
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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
    But 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?

    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.
  4. 02 Jul '12 03:24
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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 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?
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 Jul '12 03:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "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?
    It's unconstitutional. See the Supremacy Clause or Google 1865.

    The Hamilton quote used was referring to judicial review not nullification.
  6. 03 Jul '12 01:33 / 1 edit
    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.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jul '12 01:49
    Originally posted by 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.
    How much Constitutional Law have you studied, whodey?
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    03 Jul '12 02:30
    Originally posted by 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.
    SHENANIGANS!

    YOU said it was Robertscare now. LIAR!

  9. 03 Jul '12 09:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    How much Constitutional Law have you studied, whodey?
    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.
  10. 03 Jul '12 09:12
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    SHENANIGANS!

    YOU said it was Robertscare now. LIAR!

    Americans simply can't get enough of being lied to, so run along and vote for Whodey 2012!!
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Jul '12 19:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    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.
    I made my opinion known when Obama signed it: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=144285&page=&page=1