Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Citation please? I'd be interested in evidence of that.

Just to clarify, remember that I do not actually like him or even support most of his positions, I just support him more than the opposition.

[Nadaka]

He endorsed laws that would prevent the US supreme court from hearing cases on state laws related to abortion and religion. This would allow states to violate Roe VS Wade with no means to counter as well as establish state religion such as forbidding atheists and members of other religions from holding public office. He really is that bad. I don't really have the time to find citations while I am at work.

[GlyphGryph]

That's okay. I'll look it up now.

[Aqizzar]

So, if nobody's heard yet, according to Eric Holder, Obama will be signing the NDAA, but will do so with a "signing statement".  People who've been paying attention to politics for more than three years are probably struggling to keep their eyes from crossing right now.

For the uninformed a "signing statement" is a writ the President can issue when signing a law saying, "I will sign this bill into being the law of the land, but I will not enforce it for the remainder of my term of office."  It's a mechanism that's existed since at least the Jefferson administration, but it became famous as George Bush's personal "fuck you" to jurisprudence when he wound up issuing more of them than every President before him combined.  Obama so far has issued ten of them, which is historically a lot aside from Bush, but hardly "a lot" like his hundreds.  Still another weird mirror-universe example of what people were expecting from this administration.

The thing that I'm scratching my head over though, is that Holder never really gets around to saying what part of the NDAA Obama will be abstaining himself from.  Just a lot of waffling language about being pleased with changes from originally unacceptable language.  I suppose it remains to be seen what the bill actually does, when the signing itself happens.  But suffice to say, all the language as written will be law come the next President, provided another bill doesn't change it before Obama leaves office.

[palsch]

For the uninformed a "signing statement" is a writ the President can issue when signing a law saying, "I will sign this bill into being the law of the land, but I will not enforce it for the remainder of my term of office."

Not really.

The administration enforces the law, but in order to do so they must interpret the law. In certain cases the president will choose to issue a statement when he signs a bill explaining what his interpretation will be, especially when a law is vague.

These are similar to legal memos and other documents that, within the government, define what is legal for the administration to do. Unless the courts get involved the administrations interpretation of the law is the law, simply because that is what dictates how the organs of government actually enforce/carry it out.

A fairly common use is when the administration is lumbered with some provision they hold to be unconstitutional or otherwise unsuitable to enforce. They can effectively ignore such provisions. A fairly recent example was certain provisions within the april defence budget, containing similar restrictions on funds related to GTMO as this new bill. Obama's statement outlined his constitutional case against the provisions while still allowing the bill to pass into law.

Arguably signing statements aren't required at all and are only the most public example of administration authority to interpret and enforce the law. What they tend to be used for is establishing a (weak) form of legislative history. The administration can choose to treat laws as unconstitutional without needing a signing statement. A fairly recent example would be Obama choosing not to defend DOMA where there is a legitimate constitutional challenge to be made.

Anyway. The issuing of a signing statement itself isn't a big deal, especially on bills where the language is vague and there is a high measure of administration interpretation involved. Hell, it may be a purely rhetorical or political statement with no explicit objection to any of the provisions.

My first guess is this is targeted at the GTMO funding language, same as that other bill linked above. The argument is almost identical to that one. As for anything on the detention provisions, probably something about the mandate not actually being a mandate (which it sorta isn't anymore anyway). Anything else will be interesting.

[Gamerlord]

But suffice to say, all the language as written will be law come the next President, provided another bill doesn't change it before Obama leaves office.

Clever man. If you don't want that bill to come into force, you need to vote for him. Quick question, who suggested this bill again? I can never keep track of American politics, let alone those in my home country!

[thobal]

A bill like this is passed every year. The constitution tried to forbid a standing army to encourage bloodless revolutions. By authorizing military funding every year, Congress has essentially found a loophole.

[sluissa]

A bill like this is passed every year. The constitution tried to forbid a standing army to encourage bloodless revolutions. By authorizing military funding every year, Congress has essentially found a loophole.

It's not the bill itself people are having extreme objections to. It's the amendments which were tacked on. If this had just remained nothing more than a "fund the military" bill you'd not have anywhere near this strong of opposition. Although the fact that this kind of thing hasn't been making the news kinda restrains the opposition it can draw.

[Euld]

Anonymous threatens businesses and other stuff for supporting SOPA.  I didn't listen to the whole video honestly, I sorta lost interest partway through.

[inteuniso]

A bill like this is passed every year. The constitution tried to forbid a standing army to encourage bloodless revolutions. By authorizing military funding every year, Congress has essentially found a loophole.

There's the difference between funding a standing army and being able to arrest any US citizen because the US government feels like it.

[Dave1004]

A bill like this is passed every year. The constitution tried to forbid a standing army to encourage bloodless revolutions. By authorizing military funding every year, Congress has essentially found a loophole.

There's the difference between funding a standing army and being able to arrest any US citizen because the US government feels like it.

Meh, edited. Nothing to see here, folks.

[dragonshardz]

A bill like this is passed every year. The constitution tried to forbid a standing army to encourage bloodless revolutions. By authorizing military funding every year, Congress has essentially found a loophole.

There's the difference between funding a standing army and being able to arrest any US citizen because the US government feels like it.

Meh, edited. Nothing to see here, folks.

What?

[Montague]

So I read the bill I'm not convinced it does anything new or terrible against civil rights. The military has always been authorized to arrest people. The government has always had the right to detain members of Al-Quada and whatever other terrorist enemies of the nation are out there.

The wording of the bill spells out that the bill only applies to people doing obvious, direct terrorist-type shit and it doesn't expand or restrict the powers the government already has. Its launguage is not vauge at all and it really doesn't lend itself to any extreme interpretations. It also declares that US citizens don't even apply to what is in the bill unless explictly waivered by the president or secretary of defense. I imagine you'd have to be pretty antagonistic to get their attention enough for them to put that part of the law into act.

People talk about it like its a blanket rule that allows for anybody to get arrested by the military for no reason at all, but I don't see it. Unless somebody can point out something or I'm gravely misinterpreting what it says, I think people are getting worried about nothing. There are serious affronts to civil rights that get passed or mulled around in Congress, but I don't think this is one of them.

[inteuniso]

"terrorist" is used, and can be used, to define a great deal of people. Say, those protesters are speaking out against the government and raising potentially bad points? Well, they're terrorizing US citizens, and can be detained indefinitely.

The military has never had authority on US soil, except for US military bases. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) should only apply to soldiers, not private citizens. Hell, if we go by the UCMJ, no one is allowed to speak against a government official.

Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in this country, even if people say stupid, bigoted, even hateful words. This indirectly allows the US government to control speech of US citizens by declaring the United States a war zone.

[Dakk]

Being able to arrest your own citizens without warrants while not actively being at war is very anomalous in democratic countries. Defining someone as a terrorist is absurdly easy. Considering this is the US we're talking about, were two minors can get listed in the sex offender list as pedophiles for having sex with eachother, I would be very scared.