NDAA indefinite detention powers rermain in full effect after the Supreme Court refused to even listen to the Hedges v. Obama case challenging their constitutionality.
What was the Court’s rationale? It said that the plaintiffs did not show “a sufficient threat that the government will detain them.” Never mind the vague terminology in the NDAA that the feds refused to define or the unprecedented war on whistle blowers being waged by the Obama administration.
The Supreme Court’s inaction means indefinite detention without due process written into the NDAA is still in full force. The federal government has once again failed to regulate itself, putting everyone at risk of government sanctioned kidnapping.
While people like Chris Hedges, Tangerine Bolen, Daniel Ellsberg and others deserve credit for fighting the NDAA through the courts, their efforts didn’t change anything.
This really isn’t surprising.
Simply put, we cannot depend on federal courts to rein in federal power.
State and local efforts to stop unconstitutional acts,such as the Liberty Preservation Act, work because they do not rely on the corrupt president, Congress or the courts to get things in order. The people have much more influence over state and local politicians and can influence the legislative process, something nearly impossible at the federal level. We turn town councils, county commissions and state legislatures into avenues of resistance against the NDAA and other unconstitutional federal policies. We make the lower-levels of government interpose themselves against the powers granted to the feds by the NDAA.
That is how we achieve success, not through lawsuits.
Latest posts by Shane Trejo (see all)
- Wisconsin Legislator Plans to Introduce Raw Milk Bill for 2016 - November 24, 2015
- New Hampshire Committee Approves Bill to Curb “Policing for Profit” via Asset Forfeiture, Federal Loophole Remains - November 17, 2015
- Massachusetts Bill to Facilitate the Production and Distribution of Raw Milk Receives Committee Hearing - November 11, 2015