Help me!!!

Many of you hopefully already know about this, but I haven't seen anything on mainstream news (excluding the Daily Show).

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• NDAA
• Obama
• Romney
• Ron
• Paul
• civil
• rights
• constitution
• occupy
• corruption

[puellanivis]

The NDAA is so blatantly unconstitutional that it will never stand up in court. Should Obama have vetoed the ENTIRE DEFENSE SPENDING AUTHORIZATION over something that is never going to stand up in court? "Sorry soldiers, but we can't give you your paycheck, because congress passed something that is unconstitutional and Obama decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater over this issue". The NDAA is brought up ever year and ALWAYS has stupid shit in it, because it is a must pass bill.

[imrational]

@puellanivis

Have you looked at the Supreme Court decisions of the last few years? I'm not counting on them to rule in the public's favor. They've ruled that private property can be confiscated by the government under eminent domain and then handed over to corporations. That's just one of the rulings. No, I'm holding Obama's feet to the fire on this one.

[ikkuj]

2012 is the year we make contact -- Educate yourself on NWO policies.

[puellanivis]

@imrational sure they've made some decisions that have bad consequences, but if you read their actual rulings, their opinions are well founded upon legal grounds. And even though they do make a lot of decisions that some people disagree with, they make far more decisions that are not surprising. But then this ruling has no corporate benefit, so I expect the more conservative-type judges to side with the people against the government. (It's corporations > people > government)

[MageGrayWolf]

My next concern is on ACTA. After that I will turn my attention on this travesty. Reason being I want to prevent any more damage before trying to fix what's already been done.

[RyuDarragh]

@MegF142857: Absolutely! Constitution does say "By the People, For the People", not the oligarchy.

[MegF142857]

@imrational I'm cynical enough that I don't think it matters much which of the major media supported candidates get into power because they are six of one and half a dozen of the other. Obama vs Bush... not that much difference. Romney vs Obama? No difference to me. Gingrich would be bought and paid for if elected. Not much difference in what will actually happen. It seems like a complete farce. Corporatism is winning and we are all pawns in this international globalized power structure.

[MegF142857]

@imrational Obama actually did threaten a veto, but was because he wanted more powers for the executive branch to detain. He was refusing to sign & putting Congress on the spot, but just not for what you suggest. While this was happening few people were paying attention, then he got what he wanted & signed adding a non-binding qualification after the fact. I'm glad he wrote the qualification afterwards, but that struck me as just politics because won't be binding at all to a future President.

[MegF142857]

@MissXaverie Being part of defense bill would seem to have made it inevitable, but the Obama administration threatened a veto on the bill initially because they wanted more clear executive powers to detain. After they got more powers, then they agreed to sign. Obama added the qualifications after the fact, but that isn't binding on the law or him and won't matter at all for a future administration. I'm glad he wrote a qualification, but it wasn't particularly comforting to me.

[MegF142857]

@RyuDarragh Initially Obama threatened a veto on NDAA because he wanted the executive branch to have more discretion, which he got in the bill as he wanted. That Obama says he won't use the powers he got isn't very comforting to me. His personal qualification isn't actually part of the law, plus won't matter for a future president. SOPA & PIPA are still in the works, so unknown how that will pan out. People need to keep alert and then speak up vs just applaud minor victories, IMO.