NDAA A Freedom Robbing Bill As Is Claimed?

National Defense Authorization Act! A Freedom Robbing Bill As The Republiscams Loudly Proclaim? Total Maximum Bolshoi! There was no freedom robbing. In fact that aspect of the law was meaningless in that it only stated what we knew to be legally true for the past two hundred plus years.

Republiscams get off on this insane nonsense and gibberish that they are polluting the news media with. In the United States we have always allowed presidential power in times of crisis or even in times of peace to issue decrees. The presidents have issued hundreds of them. In fact, the first order after taking the oath of office is to order that all decrees in force as signed by the outgoing President are still in force and will only be repealed at a later time as deemed necessary. Just to be safe, though, the President usually sits at the Oval Office and signs all of the decrees that he wants to continue in force on the day after he has been sworn in (if he does not have a hangover like Grant had).

The greatest one that never was really issued, was dramatized in a short novel about "The Man Without A Country, who because of an utterance "Damn the United States......that he wished he had never heard of the United States!" at his trial for treason along with Aaron Burr was sentenced to be kept out at sea permanently for the rest of his life. So he was transferred from US Naval ship to US Naval ship to US Naval ship while out at sea and was never allowed to see the United States again but was not allowed to go to any other country, either.

Presidents have the ability to order anybody who commits an act of treason or insurrection against the United States incarcerated. This power of the Executive Branch of government has been carried out by lower ranking military officers and sheriffs for well over two centuries now. Obviously, Congress has not bothered to interfere with that power, but has instead decided to codify it and make it official in times of Crisis. The President has never needed that law and it makes no impact on his traditional Presidental Powers and if he is smart, he will never refer to it.

When I asked Senator Diane Feinstein a Democrat and Congressman Bian Bilbray a Republiscam why this silly law was passed, I was informed that Congress did not want that presidential power to be questioned in times of riot and civil insurrection. Mind you we have precedent for that Executive branch of power whenever a local military officer declares a state of Martial Law and gives shoot to kill orders or a Federally authorized Law Man shoots to kill or authorizes shoot to kill orders to his men.

Damn wooosie pinky liberals want to take Presidential decree and martial law authority away and put this country at risk in times of crisis. Bush would have sent American terrorists and insurrectionists to Guantanamo in a second if he felt it was necessary.

I do not think that Congress needed to pass that law as it was not necessary, but there were other items in it that needed to be codified.

Always remember this government works on Checks and Balances. The Courts (and eventually the Supreme Court) could invalidate any law that they see as in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court refuses to get into the area of Presidential Power when it comes to national defense. (Very Wise, by the way.) By their action, they have proven that Presidential Decree for National Security outweighs Civil Liberties ("Shoot to Kill" or "Wanted Dead or Alive" in our Western Territories before they became states.) Now that it is Law, the SC may very well issue an opinion about it. I do not like the precedent that the new law establishes because it weakens traditional Executive Power and says Congress has some say over the issue. I hope that future presidents will not cite the Law in their incarceration of any treasonous American citizens. IF the POTUS just issues a decree, the Supreme Court will probably not question it as befits two hundred years of American Tradition in our Balance of Power system.