To The Supporters of the NDAA

You say that:

1. The authority is specific and narrowly constrained.

Laws written by Congress do not override the Constitution, if they wish to change the Constitution they need to follow Article V. Regardless we can all site examples of laws that were “specific and narrowly constrained” that were violated by the Executive or broadened by the Courts.

2. The battlefield is wherever the enemy is.

Since they have declared the whole world to be the battlefield including the United States, when can we expect Martial Law to be declared?

3. The Fifth Amendment does not apply to unprivileged belligerents.

On American soil who determines the definition of belligerents, Congress, the President, the Military or the Courts?

Abraham Lincoln detained without habeas corpus over 13,000 citizens that disagreed with his polices including a US Representative. After the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

Woodrow Wilson again detained American citizens that spoke out against his policies during WWI or just happened to speak German in public.

And the most outrageous of all was FDR’s confining American citizens to Internment Camps without charges just because they were of Japanese descent.


Nebraska: Serving Notice to DC

The Nebraska legislature will consider Legislative Bill 1171, titled The Nebraska Balance of Powers Act during the 2012 session.

State Senator Mark Christensen of Nebraska’s 44th District introduced the bill on Jan. 19.

The Nebraska Balance of Powers Act shall serve as notice and a demand that the federal government cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and which diminish the proper balance of power between the state and federal government. It also calls for the formation of a committee on nullification.

The bill is intended to reclaim the powers that the Tenth Amendment guarantees and reserves to the states and the people of Nebraska, not delegated to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution.  Such guarantee makes up part of  a compact between the people of the State of Nebraska and the United States as of the time that the State of Nebraska was admitted to statehood in 1867.

“The Constitution of the United States affirms that the sole and sovereign power to regulate a state’s business and affairs rests in the state legislature and has always been a compelling state concern and central to state sovereignty.”


Biennial Budgeting: Baloney Budget Reform

I don’t recall ever agreeing with the left-liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), but their new paperon the drawbacks of the federal government switching to biennial budgeting is a good read. Congressional Republicans, including House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL), are the chief proponents of switching to a biennial budget cycle. By providing (qualified) support to the CBPP paper, I’m hoping to demonstrate to would-be GOP naysayers that criticism of biennial budgeting isn’t confined to one area of the ideological spectrum.

I don’t agree with everything in the paper and I don’t share some of the authors’ concerns, but here are three solid points that the paper makes: