One can only wonder what is occurring in Congress when a law like the National Defense Authorization Act passes through both branches with so much support. Of course, a president who was previously a constitutional lawyer signing it into law is even more perplexing.
In their suit, the plaintiffs stated they could be detained 'indefinitely' for their constitutionally protected activities. Citing the 'vagueness' of certain language in the bill, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest -- who was appointed to the court by Obama -- agreed, and said the law could have "chilling impact on First Amendment rights" for journalists, activists, and potentially all US citizens.
While this is not exactly surprising since there has been much online buzz about this National Defense Authorization Act being in violation of the U.S. Constitution, it is good to see it verified by a judicial system that has in recent years lost the confidence of a vast amalgam of the American populace.
But there is another interesting thing I discovered in looking for more information on this development. The opening pages of GOOGLE do not list one single major news outlet carrying the story. That fact, I think, speaks volumes, especially in tandem with the pathetic nature of signing into law of this horrific bill by a president whose background is specifically constitutional law. And it says much about how out of touch most of the American voters who support Obama really are.
The fact that Obama – supposedly a constitutional scholar – actually signed the NDAA into law is more telling, in my opinion. It saddens me to think our choices are between four more years of this kind of pathetic lawmaking, or worse, and that so many Americans refuse to make a firm stand against this particular brand of tyranny.
Chipping away, chipping away, chipping away …