Obama Demands Court Uphold His “Right” To Ignore Constitution
August 15, 2012 By Doug Book 60 Comments
Obama’s Department of Justice is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people.
On May 16th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights.
Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority, government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”
And when asked by the judge what it meant to be an “associated force”, Obama’s lawyers “…claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of [the] term, or clear boundaries of the president’s power under [the] law.” In short, it is the federal government’s scheme that the Act remain so vague that a corrupt and power-hungry Administration may imprison virtually anyone it considers a threat to its pursuit of absolute power.
On July 25th, Administration lawyers filed papers demanding Judge Forrest’s preliminary injunction NOT be made permanent. In the filing, Obama made it clear his Administration would ignore the court and its injunction regardless of what the judge may decide, claiming incorrectly that “…[the] injunction would have ‘nil’ effect, for the government would continue to possess the identical detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force…” Of course, that is a lie, as the AUMF applies only to known members of al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Most indicative of the Obama Administration’s contempt for Judge Forrest, the law, and the American people was government attorney Benjamin Torrance’s claim that it was “the Obama Administration’s position” NDAA detention provisions do not apply to American citizens living in the US. Judge Forrest responded by quoting Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote in a 2010 case that the Supreme Court “…would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.” So much for Judge Forrest’s faith in the validity and value of Obama’s signing statement promise to not employ his Section 1021 authority to indefinitely detain the American public!
Yet incredibly, when pressed on the issue, this Obama mouthpiece suggested to Forrest that concerns about the president’s detention powers were excessive as American citizens would, after all, have the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed! “How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance refused to answer, the Judge continued, “Several years, right”?
So not only did Obama’s attorney lie about his Marxist boss’s corrupt intentions; he actually claimed that the abuse of American citizens was somehow acceptable because those unconstitutionally imprisoned might ask that the charges against them be produced after ONLY a few years behind bars!
Judge Forrest will soon decide whether to make the injunction permanent. Every citizen must watch very carefully for that ruling, as the “mainstream” media has ignored the story completely. We must all hope the Judge will not be intimidated by this corrupt Regime as so many of her colleagues have been before her.
Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach