Obama Threatens Veto of NDAA 2013: Too Many Restrictions on His “Exclusive” Authority

Last week, several major news outlets reported on a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) released by the White House regarding the Fiscal Year 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

In the SAP, President Obama lays out 32 reasons why he is likely to veto the newest iteration of the NDAA.

The headlines announcing the President’s promise to reject the NDAA are identical to those published early last December, just a couple of weeks before the President took time off from his Hawaiian vacation to sign the measure into law. Somehow, President Obama was able to set aside his issues with the act and grant himself the power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial.

Recently, we reported how those very provisions — those purporting to give the President the expansive and unconstitutional powers described above — remain in this year’s NDAA, despite the best efforts of a handful of constitutionally-minded representatives.

Last month, by a vote of 238-182, members of Congress rejected the amendment offered by Representatives Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) that would have repealed the indefinite detention provision passed overwhelmingly last year as part of the Fiscal Year 2012 NDAA.

Not only does the 2013 NDAA retain the indefinite detention provisions, but the section permitting prisoners to be transferred from civilian jurisdiction to the custody of the military persists, as well.

“The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial,” Representative Amash said during House debate on his amendment.

In his impassioned speech supporting his proposal, Representative Smith reminded his colleagues that the NDAA granted to the President “extraordinary” powers and divested the American people of key civil liberties, as well as divesting civilian courts of their constitutional jurisdiction.

Details

Government Defies Federal Judge on NDAA

When 4th District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional, there was wide rejoicing across the internet. Posts from prominent civil liberties activists, like journalist David Seaman, rang out with VIICCTOOORRYY! A Russia Today newscast titled the ruling “NDAA Shot Down, But Threats Remain” seemed to imply that the fight was over, or “on hold.” But it was only just beginning.

Do you remember, from your high school or college government courses, where they talked about the court having “neither the power of the sword nor the purse?” That means the High Courts of the United States cannot force the government to accept their ruling. They can heavily imply it, but they have no power to force government compliance. When the Supreme Court ruled against the government in Worcester v. Georgia, President Andrew Jackson is famous for having responded: “[Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

The tyrannical U.S. Government has taken the exact same tack with the ruling against them on the NDAA. But first, let’s quickly recap exactly how weak the government case in favor of the NDAA actually was. In Hedges v. Obama, the government routinely avoided the judge’s questions and demands:

Details

Smashing Tyranny, Restoring America

Ron Paul’s Restore America Plan is a 12-page budget that cuts $1 trillion in spending the first year and balances the budget by the 3rd year.  Paul proposes eliminating 5 federal executive agencies that include the following departments: Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and the Interior. The video below explains why it would be a tremendous benefit to get rid of the Department of Interior.

The Department of the Interior has over 70,000 employees and receives more than $12 billion in taxpayer funds.


map-owns_the_westFederally Owned Land

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is unconstitutional because control over land, water, resources and wildlife are not mentioned as an enumerated power in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Additionally, the federal government’s ownership of nearly 30% of US land, primarily in the Western states, is an affront to the Equal Footing Doctrine

Details