The National Defense Authorization Act Is Unconstitutional

We're not yet sure if it is technically unconstitutional.
It is unAmerican and should be unconstitutional.
This is a bi partisan atrocity to our rights. Bush gave us the Patriot Act with bipartisan support and now Obama has finished the job with the NDAA with votes from across the aisles.

"Those who provided and supported this outrageous and illegal attack on the Constitution - in violation of their Oath of Office - should be voted out of office and deprived of their retirement benefits. "

I agree. This is the only way we can reverse this. Protests alone are meaningless. Anyone who would vote for Obama, Capps, Gallegly (who is retiring anyway) and anyone else who supported this is out of touch with reality.

"We're not yet sure if it is technically unconstitutional.
It is unAmerican and should be unconstitutional.
This is a bi partisan atrocity to our rights. Bush gave us the Patriot Act with bipartisan support and now Obama has finished the job with the NDAA with votes from across the aisles."

-italiansurg-

I agree with this as well.

Ok people, time to rise up and be heard...in the voting booth.

To my understanding, this is the 1st time that a bill regarding laws & chages to said laws has been attached to a budget.
Yes, anybody who actively participates in acts of terrorism against the US or it's citizens should be incarcerated.
But as for those 'suspected' of terrorism, that's what surveillance is for.
But to incarcerate solely on suspicion goes against the grain of 'innocent until proven guilty' which IS guaranteed by the Constitution as part of due process.
The surveillance aspect of anti-terrorism is always what leads to bigger fish getting caught or @ least being identified.
What the terrorist scum (ranging from McVeigh to bin-Laden) tried to do was to attack the US Constitution.
What the NDAA is trying to do is the same. How Chavez/Zelaya-esque of our leaders in government (& both sides of the aisle) to do this :) henry

...and the Sheeple known as the American voters keep rewarding them with more power.

The Mc McCarthy hearings, although devastating, did not have a long profile; or a lasting effect on America in its primary objective, in ridding America of true communism and tyranny. I had said that we have been told that we need to be taken care of. We will be made dependant. The government will continue to grow and so will government jobs which will force us to owe ourselves, rendering protocol to the machine. The business man, he will first be a legend and then a myth. In Colorado you cannot collect rain water. In some counties in the USA you cannot grow a garden in the city. Progressives have learned baby steps form the ancient Asian and Eastern Religions. The parable of the farmer who buys the plot of land full of rocks, another man calls him a fool saying he will never farm it. The man replies, no I won’t and nor will my son, but my grandsons children will. We have a Mc Donald’s mentality. This country and its skewed science in the middle of an ice age on global warming is as frantic as Mc Donald’s filling your order in a minute or two. The US Constitution will have to follow the rules of treason for American citizens who are enemy combatants or suspected while investigations are being done because of the sophistication of espionage and technology. It will not be like the Salem Witch Hunt where someone says a fabricated lie, nor is your freedoms of speech at jeopardy if you are articulate in your position as an American.

This was designed by Congress, and Obama implemented a signing statement to the effect that Americans are not included, after reluctantly signing the bill.

There is another bill in the works to nullify this.

It is shocking that so many congress men and women passed this law - it would have never been close to passing if they had not voted for it. A more representative form of govt should be developed. Congress right now does not function in the best interests of the nation.

tabatha: "Congress right now does not function in the best interests of the nation."

Neither does our Commander in Chief :) henry

A republican form of government is still a democracy. A democracy is not a republic. Democracy is mob rule. It is a democratic form of government that allows, “The people with the most at stake”, whatever that means, to vote to take money from the public funds. In a republic it is the people that have the stake that would be the voters. That is a narrow view.
But now we have everyone voting money out of the public coffers and we have special interest groups funded by the government; it is not a republic. To limit the powers of government the fathers of the US Constriction declared that we would be a Republic. The push for the dismissal of the Electoral College is another attach on the Republic.
Social and political correctness have lead to entitlements. These entitlements, of a hundred years of deficit spending programs, that just gets bigger every year making us economically vulnerable. The treat is economic collapse not the NDAA.

"The treat is economic collapse not the NDAA."

JW: While your point about the U.S. being Republic as opposed to a Democracy is true and something many (probably most) people don't realize, and your other point is well-taken, the NDAA is--in and of itself--an attack on our way of life. It's not an either/or situation.

And surely Obama and The Congress weren't unaware with people's concern about this issue. I was hoping they at least put some dog and pony show on to explain the bill and why THEY were supporting it. The most I heard was from Capps and focused only on the initial tax/business purpose of the bill.
Beyond disappointing.
Instead "everyone" was distracted by Iowa and Christmas and everything else.
Only someone poorly educated would wax nostalgic about the McCarthy hearings much less claim they rid the US of Communism which wasn't much of an internal threat to begin with, nor much of an outside one either once the dust settled on Potemkin's nuclear village.

KenV: "Only someone poorly educated would wax nostalgic about the McCarthy hearings much less claim they rid the US of Communism:

So who are you saying is "poorly educated"? :) henry

The U.S. voters are like a woman who is attractive, smart, nice, making a good income, yet continues to date a man who's cheating on her and beating up on her and her kids. Many of us have seen this scenario and the rationalizing that goes with it: "He's really not a bad guy, he just gets stressed out" "he can be very affectionate" and so forth. Like the proverbial woman cited, the U.S. voter is in a psychological trap where they think that somehow if they "make nice"--as the saying goes, everything will get better but like the poor woman caught in the trap of abuse whose beatings get worse over time, the voters grow more accustomed to the idea of our freedoms being taken away by people as these voters reward them with ever-increasing power.

The common thread here is familiarity: One gets so afraid of change that they adjust to abuse whether it's physical, psychological, sexual, or financial. There is an analogy that if you toss a frog into a pan of hot water the frog will jump out but if you put the frog into a pan of warm water and slowly turn up the heat the frog will stay in there and cook to death. The American voters--like the frog in its final stages of life--are starting to lose consciousness and in light of what is happening with legalized torture, (waterboarding is supported by Romney) or the NDAA, one would have to be suicidal to even consider voting for Romney, Obama, Capps, Feinstein, Boxer, or anyone else who does not take an implacable stance against these violations of our rights.

Additionally, what moral negotiating power does the U.S. have abroad when it violates human rights? How can our country point the finger at anyone else when it doesn't live by the principles it espouses?

Well Hank, I'm confident that all my fellow UCSB alumns aren't into witchhunts ;-) (PS. "Witch hunts and vigilantism are themes in my new film!)

KenV: " I'm confident that all my fellow UCSB alumns aren't into witchhunts."

Define "witchhunt" :) henry

"Define 'witchhunt' :) henry"

He won't give the plot away; we will have to go and see the film.

Bill nails it again. Plus I don't wanna risk breaking the promotion rule and get deleted.

Where's the film showing, Ken?

bill, as usual you state something ive been thinking for years. the analogy of the abused woman is totally on point. barack obama was a dirty trick played on americans, african americans in particular.

Further bc, the American voter has been spoon fed so many entitlements from the government that we're asking people to vote against their own self interest in openly and vociferously disagreeing with their representative in areas like this.
This explains why although the public opinion of Congress is at an all time low most voters think their particular Congress person is doing a good job. Kinda' oxymoronic...

I don't consider privacy, freedom of expression and assembly to be entitlements. I also believe I am entitled to eventually get back the money I put into Social Security and possible MediCare as well. I do also feel somewhat entitled to a country in which everyone is given an equal opportunity, especially in the areas of health and education. No one benefits from an ignorant, sick populace.

@ Bill Clausen, still shooting and editing!

Gee KV, that really makes your point...?
Once again, it's always the OTHER representatives that are bad, especially the Republicans especially since plenty of Dem's that are for equal opportunity yadayadayada voted to circumvent our constitutional rights as well.
We obviously deserve to be screwed by the NDAA if it's the fault of someone else every single time.

Correction: Freedom of expression and assembly, and privacy I do indeed consider entitlements.
One major change this site could use would be allowing participants to go back and correct or even delete their own comments. My damn wireless keyboard loses connection and I never know til it's too late. Sometimes people want to correct facts ect.

@Italian< where on earth did I blame one party over another in my comment? Or do you just have a kneejerk reaction when you see my name. Jeez.

So far what I've come up with is (and this is only what I know--y'all may well be able to add to this) is that we have two front-runners (Obaba and Romney) who don't care about our civil rights. Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party and the Peace And Freedom Party are opposed to waterboarding, arresting and detaining people without trial, and so forth.

On the one end, there are those who prefer smaller government, (e.g. Hank and Italiansurg) they there are those who prefer larger government, (Ken_V and Binky) but we all recognize that we're getting nailed from both sides. Reasonable people can debate the role/size of government (going back to the debate started by those great patriots Jefferson and Hamilton) but now we are faced with something which renders this debate secondary.

What good is Medicare, the military, public schools, health care, and entitlements when one is rotting in a jail cell without even being charged with a crime?

Freedom of expression and assembly, and privacy, are entitlements? I presume you did not actually mean that unless our mutual definitions of "rights" under the Constitution and Bill of Rights are entirely different. "Freedom of expression and assembly, and privacy" ARE RIGHTS and have nothing to do with entitlements which are perks, pork, good n' bad stuff, that our Senators and Congressman shovel to their constituency in order to keep themselves in office through our own greed.
This act violates, in my opinion, several RIGHTS. We need to begin seeing through the ENTITLEMENTS and begin voting people out even if we get less redevelopment funds or highway funds or bridges on Haley St or free food for illegal alien kids you name it...

I don't want bigger government, I want better government!
Isn't a "Right" the same as an "entitlement"? If you're entitled to something do you not have a Right to it? If you pay rent on a house aren't you entitled to live in it?
I fail to see how this Bill has anything to do with what are commonly called "entitlements" (social security, ect>) other than our (fill-in blank)-given entitlements as outlined in our Bill of Rights.
Btw, no longer a supporter of Ron Paul. Italiansurg was right about that one.

Rights

"Rights" are part of and come from Natural Law, they come from our Humanity. Since they are Natural and preexist any form of Government they cannot be taken away by any form of Government. The Great Debate between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists (Thomas Jefferson) that basic, not all Rights, needed to be memorialized in the Bill of Rights, which James Madison wrote to gain the support of Thomas Jefferson for the transition from the failed Confederation to the Constitution.

Entitlements

"Entitlements" are a creation of Government, they can be modified, changed, and taken away in a heartbeat by Government.
Entailments are nothing more than bribes using OPM, be careful what you sell your Soul for.

Governments hate Rights as it limits their power to manipulate the People, Jefferson was afraid we would become what we have become.

Remember Thomas Jefferson, he was the guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence. Todays Homework, read the Declaration, it is one the most profound documents written in the history of the World.

Maybe Congress needs to study it's founding documents once and while.

I apologize for going by the standard dictionary definitions and not the Cato Institute's.

Cato??

Doesn't the Little Red School House teach History, or is it just Propaganda?

It amazes me how Ignorant people are of their own History. I guess that is why they say that Political Systems fail every Two Hundred Years or so, people live in the now and forget the Foundation or are just fat and lazy, refusing to read, clinging to Propaganda instead of Historical Fact.

A whole body of historical works, by historians, exists on the Philosophy of Government envisioned by the Founders.

Ancient World Natural Law,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

The real John Locke,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

The more than 30 books by Leonard W. Levy.

You do have to work a little.

The battle of Jefferson vs Hamilton is well documented.

Cato - thats a Lazy Copout.

Oh and before you get your panties in a bunch over the Christian component to Natural Law, Jefferson was a Deist.

Jefferson was an Atheist. You just lost credibility. Is "Mother Nature" really a Christian? What was "she" before "Christ"? Is she Baptist, Catholic, Methodist? Silly.

Why did he write in the beginning of the Declaration of Independence the following. Sure a lot of God mention in the wording for an Atheist. I have never heard an Atheist say "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — "

Lets look at the 1st Amendment, Right of Free Speech, among others.

It is a Right not an Entitlement. Under Judicial Review, Strict Scrutiny applies before the Government can infringe on the Right. You have a body of Law that is hundreds of years old as it applies to Rights.

Governments erode Rights everyday for many Reasons, it is up to the People to demand Judicial Review to declare the Infringement Unconstitutional. The original OP is correct to call a portion of the Act Unconstitutional, same with the Patriot Act.

You cannot go off killing bad guys in Yemen, no matter how bad, without Due Process, if they are American Citizens. The Slippery Slope of depends what is is, has done great harm and damage to the Rights of all Americans.

The whole Historical Philosophy behind Natural Law and Rights is they an inalienable and not subject to Governments.

Your Entitlement Game is a Governments Pipe Dream, King George would have given you a Landed Title.

Jefferson Bible,

Funny how an Atheist would bother?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferso...

Here is one, he calls himself a Christian, but I am sure not in the Orthodox Sense. He even contradicts by his own hand your claim.

Big difference in Regurgitating Propaganda and knowing what you are talking about!

He was a complex man, but NO Atheist.

"In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798.99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic: and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the results of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that Anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinion. To the corruption of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in which the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all other; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other" - Thomas Jefferson. Washington, April 21, 1803

Those words by Jefferson reflect my own feelings however such term's as "Nature's Law" mean Nature itself, not a theocracy. The whole purpose of Jefferson's Bible was to distill the message from the supernatural. Jeffrerson was a Naturalist, not a Supernaturalist. It is Christ's message he is embracing, not a theology. You'll know that if you dig deeper.
Conservatives like Allan Simpson and P.J. O'Rourke would agree I'm sure.
Furthermore, in response to some statements made about myself and the regurgitation of propaganda: you'll spin yourself silly and drop dead of exhaustion trying pigeonhole me so don't waste your time. Many have tried, all have failed.

Hahah Fivedolphins! You win!

You'd think that just enforcing the old treason laws would be enough.

Thomas Jefferson tried the best he could to exegesis the bible which was in Latin to English. The grammar rules made a translation of the Bible from Greek to English was horrible and a massive challenge. He knew that the Greek language did not have the same rules of grammar as English. He sought out the German Bibles to get the proper hermeneutical and isagogical significance of not only Bible passages but doctrines; the German theologians were the best.

The Pilgrim Pride is a good read.

Thomas Jefferson was a botanist and almanac aficionado as well. He was very anal in his note taking.

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian.

Signed into law on New Years Eve!

That says it all and what is amazing to me is the Treason.