Hordes of people, on the Left and the Right, were screaming about how those sections of the NDAA 2012 would allow the government to indefinitely imprison Americans without charges or trial – a gut shot to the Constitution.

Truth be told, I was close to being one of them. The only reason that I didn’t join in the ranting was that there were two versions of the bill in question, one in the House and one in the Senate, and both were being rewritten and reworded too rapidly for me to keep up with them.

When you have to redo a draft post three times in five days, it’s time to step back and wait till things settle – if one cares at all about posting reasonably accurate information.

By the the time the dust settled the issue was laid to rest, despite Obama’s campaign statement upon signing the NDAA 2012 into law.

My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.

– President Obama, January 1, 2012
NDAA 2012 Signing Statement

The dangerous language that had been in earlier, working versions of both the House and Senate versions of the bill was removed and specific exceptions for American citizens, legal residents, and anyone apprehended within US borders were coded into the final, Enrolled bill which Obama signed into law at the beginning of the year.

Yet the insanity continues, further fueled by Obama’s useless signing statement, as if these very much needed corrections were never made.  Disinformation continues to be spread and the ignorant masses keep lapping it up.

To debunk this idiocy all one has to do is to read the relevant sections (1021 & 1022) of the final version of the 2012 NDAA:

NDAA 2012, Title X, Subtitle D, SEC. 1021

Affirmation of Authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to authorization for use of military force

AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

– NDAA 2012 p. 265

Under NDAA 2012 the US military still doesn’t have the right to indefinitely detain any US citizen or legal resident. It wasn’t even granted the right to indefinitely detain illegal aliens who are captured or arrested within US borders.

NDAA 2012, Title X, Subtitle D, SEC. 1022

Requirement for military custody

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS. — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

– NDAA 2012 p. 266

The NDAA 2012 has not in any way called for the requirement of military custody of American citizens or expanded those requirements for legal residents.

But over three weeks after the NDAA 2012 was signed into law and longer since its final version was enrolled people are still ranting and raving over it – all of them referencing admittedly heinous verbiage that was in earlier versions of the bills.

Yes! Earlier versions of the NDAA 2012 included some of the most dangerous language I’ve seen in proposed legislation and, again yes, that language was made even more chilling in context due to some of the rhetoric by individual legislators who obviously didn’t want to abide by the Constitution and had no qualms about “disappearing” American citizens.

Those dangerous and unconstitutional provisions did not, however, survive the final writing of the law. Let me repeat that – Those dangerous and unconstitutional provisions did not survive the final writing of the law

If one wants to continue complaining about the NDAA 2012 and not look like an idiot while doing so, different arguments will have to be raised.

Possibly Valid Complaints

Depending upon your sensibilities the complaints below would still be valid:

• NDAA 2012 keeps Gitmo open and prevents Obama from moving detainees into the US civilian prison or courts systems
• NDAA 2012 calls for detention of enemy combatants until the end of hostilities, which is an unforeseen and unforeseeable date in the War on Terror
• NDAA 2012 could be interpreted as formally legalizing Extraordinary Rendition

But, for the sake of providing some evidence that the American people aren’t a ignorant as many claim us to be, quit ranting about things – no matter how horrific they were – that never saw the light of day as law.

Obstructionist!

After all, small-minded, self-absorbed, narcissistic boy masquerading as a man or not, Obama is a Liberal who studied constitutional law and their sort only do so in order to learn how to manipulate and suborn it.

After all, Obama is the First Black President and it’s not as if he’s going to complacently allow a document written by a group of rich, old, White slave owners to obstruct his being seen by history as more than a footnote or cautionary tale.

No, Obama doesn’t like it when things get in the way of his grand reelection scheme. The boy has little patience for anyone or anything that obstructs his goals and he’s more than willing to sidestep around such obstructions.

In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC the SCOTUS Justices rendered a blunt 9-0 ruling that the Obama Regime does not have the right or privilege to tell a religious institution who may or may not be in their clergy nor under what terms they onboard or offboard such ministers and/or priests, overruling and reversing the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ early decision.

The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

– Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Writing for the Court

So, for now, the shades of the Founding Fathers are smiling. The Supreme Court unanimously slapped down the Obama Regime’s attempt to violate the 1st Amendment and Americans’ freedom of religion.

The New White House Toilet Paper

Thanks to this pic from a West Wing restroom we can now all see that this is patently untrue. The Obama White makes regular use of our Constitution.

Sometimes To Save The Body Diseased Parts Must Be Excised

The prognosis for Obama’s “signature achievement” is fairly grim. Worse for him and his Liberals, the SCOTUS are not often surgically precise and the gavel is a hammer, not a scalpel.

Given the current poor health of Obamacare and Obama’s presidency in general, one has to begin to wonder if Obama has filed a DNR notice – Do Not Reelect.

Obama’s defense of his violation of US law and even the War Powers Act, which gives the POTUS certain limited leeway in using force without prior congressional approval, seems to center upon the war in Libya being a UN mandated action that is being conducted under the auspices of NATO.

The UN Made Me Do It. I was Only Following Orders

The only other possibility is that Obama is attempting the Whoopi Defense – It’s not war-war, much like it wasn’t rape-rape in the case of Roman Polanski drugging and rutting into an unconscious 13 year-old girl.

Of course some things totally overwhelm and beggar credulity – either because you, because of who and what you are, could not conceive that people would fail to supports your actions or because your actions seem so atypical for anyone claiming the specific knowledge, training, and loyalties pertaining to the situation.

It shows that he was born at 7:42 PM, August 4, 1961 in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, Honolulu, HI of Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham.

Simply put, it’s about damn time that Obama did that. It should not have taken the goading of Donald Trump and his potential bid for the presidency in 2012 to get Obama to do this. Obama should have surrendered this form as soon as the question of his eligibility came up, just as Senator John McCain – the Old White Man that ran against him 2008 in case anyone’s forgotten – did when functionally identical questions about his eligibility arose.

Reasonable minds, however, understand that there is room for debate and even compromise.

For example, requiring backgrounds checks for all firearm purchases and closing the “gun show loophole.” This is reasonable and can, with a little due diligence, be accomplished without trampling the Constitutional Rights enumerated in the 2nd Amendment and protected by the exercise of the same.

I’d be all in favor of this if the following preconditions were met:

1. Multi-State background check databases were made easily accessible and commercially viable portable checking “kiosks” were developed so that the requirement for a background check didn’t de facto constitute a Prior Restraint on American’s right to keep arms.
2. The exact same requirement and methodology for background checks is implemented by law at the polls for every election or referendum ballot.

The above are just simple compromises and pragmatic preconditions necessary to ensure that reasonable protective measures are emplaced on two perilous activities that Americans regularly undertake, purchasing firearms and exercising their franchise.

It seems to me that there’s little, if any, room for rational complaint about making sure the same provisions that cover firearm purchases also cover voting in elections or referendum ballots.

If the requirement for a background check is not a Prior Restraint upon American’s 2nd Amendment right then it obviously isn’t an illegal imposition on American’s privilege of voting.

Similarly, the rationale for such background checks is essentially the same for both firearms and voting. Society has long ago decided and codified into law that felons and the mentally infirm should be denied the ability to do either because either action entails significant dangers to society when undertaken by these individuals.

It’s a simple compromise that has the elegance of solving two problems with a single methodology, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing costs to all. It also has the key benefit of having checks and balances built into it since any changes to the system or procedures that might negatively impact either firearm purchases or voting would similarly affect the other.

Firearms and franchise – the more people understand the similarities between the two, the greater chance there is of a reasonable and rational set of laws regarding either or both.

On the Democratic side, nine liberal House members “strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday, two Democratic congressmen who took part told Politico.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” a Democrat lawmaker said.

One of the nine Democrats, Rep. Kucinich, has publicly issued the strongest criticism of Obama. “President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn’t have congressional authorization. He has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said,” Kucinich told Raw Story in an interview on Monday.

“I’m raising the question as to whether or not it’s an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

That doesn’t mean Obama should in fact be impeached and removed from office, Kucinich said. “That’s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.”

One could easily sink themselves in the morass of conflicting laws and legal precedents, and of conflicting clauses and articles in our Constitution, that surround any POTUS sending American forces into a foreign armed conflict under the auspices of a United Nations or NATO agreement, request, or demand to do so. Finding one’s way back out of that morass would prove a lengthy and difficult process.

Rep. Kucinich’s statement does, however, bring up another question and it is much simpler – If he truly believes that President Obama’s actions were in violation of the Constitution and, hence, constitute an impeachable offense, why isn’t he talking about about impeaching Obama and removing him from office?

Fish, cut bait – or get your useless ass out of the boat, you filthy, pathetic, intellectually or morally defunct gnome!

An American is forced to wonder at Kucinich’s statement that the question of the crime should be separate from the application of the law. A few rationales for this schism immediately present themselves:

• Politics – It’s somehow different when the POTUS in question is of the same party as the Congressional complainant and it’s the start of 2012 election season.
• Race – “Race Savviness” once again requires that the bar for required, acceptable, and/or appropriate behavior be lowered because the subject in question is identified as Black.
• Racial Politics – It’d be foolish and self-destructive for the Democrats to anger or alienate the Black Vote, their largest and most dependable bloc, and being seen or portrayed as attacking the First Black President would most certainly do that.
• Street Cred – Kucinich doesn’t believe the arguments he”s made in the first place and is just trying to maintain his anti-war “cred” with the Far Left by mouthing these statements.

I would personally guess that it’s a disgusting amalgamation of all four rationales that causes Kucinich to raise the specter of Obama’s war in Libya being an impeachable offense but claiming that the question of whether Obama should be impeached is a separate matter.

In any event, it was a grossly pathetic display by Kucinich and one that will cost him dearly, though for all the wrong reasons and none of the right ones.