Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Can the US Congress, Enact Laws that render Articles and Amendments of the United States Constitution null and void.

Posted 2 years ago on March 12, 2012, 1:59 p.m. EST by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"NDAA" The National Defense Authorization Act, Allows indefinite detention without evidence or charge. The individual so detained does not have a right to Habius Corpus.

60 Comments

60 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)

Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ MattLHolck: Do you understand that it was signed into LAW on New Years Eve. Its the law of the land right now.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

I think Matt's point was that the provisions in the NDAA didn't go through the paths to a true admendment, which is one aspect that also makes it blatantly illegal.

It's a scary state of things here, now that Congress can ram through provisions like this with no regards for the Constitution whatsoever.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ PopsMauler: I understood the point of his post, what I am saying is its Law right now, not hypothetically.

If its law now, we don't know if detentions are taking place or not. There is a provision that no one will be notified.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Carl Levin is counting on us reacting in fear and controlling us that way. They simply cannot pick up enough of us to effect reality on the ground, so they want to spread fear -- apparently you do also.

I we don't fear them, the NDAA is toothless. You seem to be afraid of that.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Not sure what you mean. Carl Levin? Why do you say it's toothless?

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Gotcha. It's seriously f'ed up isn't it?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Yes it is, and I'm concerned for our Country.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Looks like PopsMauler is your own sock puppet. You so funny.

Keep spreading that fear!!! Should I send you a ladle?

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Nomdeguerre, wtf are you on about? I'm most certainly not an alt.

The NDAA is something to be worried about. For one its' a recommitment to the "War On Terror" for the forseeable future. Two, the provisions for seizing anyone are right there. All it takes is our government's favorite abstraction, terrorism. It's not a conincidence that said definition is constany expanded in other bills too.

It's deplorable enough already that so many have been held indefinitely in Guantanamo and other holding facilites for so long as is. Expanding that toolset is certainly unethical to me, and I can't see how any reasonable person is okay with this.

Here's the section pertaining to detainees alone:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112eEvSin:e548990:

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Yes. Until it is tested and challenged in Court. Donate to the ACLU today.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ April: How can there be a court challenge when no notification will be given when a Citizen is detained.

I'm a member of the ACLU.

Dentition's could be happening as we speak, there is no way to know.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You probably know more than me. I was speaking in purely lay person terms, in the general sense, for most any law that is passed. Is allowed until challenged in court. And I have not read the actual language of NDAA.

I agree it could be happening. But I think there are ways that we would know. Someone else would see it. Or someone else would notice that the person is missing. By no means is this full proof or necessarily effective. Because no one would no where or why the person is missing.

But I'm hoping our government would use this only as a last resort for extraordinary circumstances.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Congress can pass and the President can sign a bologna sandwich if they want. It's up to the courts to overturn unconstitutional laws and a case to challenge laws on that basis can be brought by anyone. The reason legal watchdog groups do it most often is because they have the money. I would have challenged a whole array of legislation emanating from the the conservative Congress under W, and I even had standing on several. But I don't have the resources and I'm not a good poster child for the ACLU.

Unfortunately, it is constitutional to suspend habeas corpus during times of war and domestic insurrection. And those terms can be so broadly defined that suspending habeas corpus can be MADE legal with ease. This is just one of many mechanisms the federal government uses to separate the electorate from the elected. But until SCOTUS is brought back under control, everything they do that protects the corporatists from the rest of us will be rubber-stamped by the conservative Roberts Five.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ pewestlake: I have not heard of any lawsuits, some Congressmen and Senators have filed bills to repeal the law.

But in the mean time its the law of the land and there is a provision that no notification will be given when a Citizen is detained. So we don't know if anything has or is happening.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Abraham Lincoln first suspended the right to writs of habeas corpus in 1862. Then George W Bush suspended the same right in 2006. Nothing really new: when one is a criminal, the law means very little, whether it's a traffic ordinance or an article of the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ TitusMoans Did they also authorize indefinite detention without a charge and that they will not notify anyone your being held?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

That's what suspending the writ of habeas corpus means. You do not have to be officially charged to be held for any period of time. And being held incommunicado goes back far before Lincoln.

The Magna Carta first tried to restrain imperial powers in England. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were designed for the same purpose. But laws rarely stop criminals; hence, the ineffectiveness of gun-control laws.

[-] 1 points by dormantideas (6) 2 years ago

9th and 10th amendments NULLIFICATION of unconstitutional legislation by claiming Sovereignty. 38 States have filed bills to claim Sovereignty. One of the best compilation of the current events is a w w w d o r m a n t i d e a s c o m It puts everything that is currently happening in a connect the dots approach that spells it all out. It put everyone on the same page, ready to answer any questions from the troll who come to debunk you as idiots and post on the NET to embarrass you.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Only if the people want it. Most are too busy eating big macs and watching TV to give a shit.

There's your answer. And its not lookin good.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ---Marbury vs. Madison. The unconstitutional aspects of NDAA are null and void, we are not bound by them.

If the Supreme Court says they're constitutional, then they should be impeached.

In a way it is complicated, but if we do not stand for the constitution and the United States of America they will be gone forever.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

We are bound by them UNTIL the Supreme court says otherwise, unfortunately. Unless the court declares them null and void, they are not. We can protest them, we can go to jail for protesting them, we can sue to oppose their rulings, but we are nonetheless bound by them legally. We can choose to break the law, (and suffer the consequences voluntarily) but it is the law nonetheless. And the only way to impeach a Supreme Court judge is by a vote of the House AND senate. That's not very likely to happen, again unfortunately.

Civil disobedience is certainly a route to take to remedy this wrong, but so are all the other routes, including voting and suing.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You are not an American are you?

You think they'd try if they see us sneer and laugh at them? The NDAA is like watching unAmerican scum dig up the corpses of George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine etc. and rape them. I'm telling you this will not stand.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I am not in any way a supporter of the NDAA. I am opposed to it as completely as you are. I am only stating a fact of law. No law is null and void because a citizens declares it such. It is null and void by a court making it so, or a legislature repealing it. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's simply the facts.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ nomdeguerre: What will happen when people start to disappear, according to the Law no one will be notified when you are detained.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You think they'll dare? Only if we bow down in advance.

Benjamin Franklin gave me a personal charge: "We've given you a Republic. Let's see if you can keep it."

Yes sir, Mr. Franklin, I will do my best.

I'm afraid the fascists underestimate the American people. Where do you stand?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@nomdeguerre How will we know, it could be happening as we speak.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I don't believe so. If it starts we'll all know. I'm sure all activists are on the lookout for these unAmerican anti-patriotic scum to start acting.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ nomdeguerre: What exactly will they be looking for? Searching the missing persons reports at the thousands of police departments in the US.

I'm not being a smart ass, but I don't think the people who would do such a dastardly deed would be upfront with it.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I'm through with you, you are obviously an apologist for unAmerican evil. Get lost.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The USA had conscription (the draft) for decades which seems to violate the 13th amendment.

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

the fact is that what the PTB wants the PTB get, piece of paper be damned.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

"What the PTB wants the PTB gets, piece of paper be damned." That, as far as I'm concerned, is the problem. There isn't supposed to be a PTB here; the PTB is supposed to be the American people, and the people we send to DC are supposed to act as the advocates, brokers, and mouthpieces for the people rather than for whoever can toss the most money into an election cycle.

[-] -3 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

The people do not want the responsibility as it would cut into their NFL and xbox time. So, they vote and hire super-rich bastards to do as they very well please in an institution clearly owned by multi-national financial interests.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Which them means that it falls to those of us who don't particularly care for NFL and Xbox time to run things as best we can, to keep the country out of the hands of troublemakers and fat cats, and hopefully to raise a new generation that is ready, willing, and able to take on the duties of an informed citizenry above all else.

[-] -1 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Too late for "keeping it out of those hands"..... the task now is eliminating those hands grasp on it and then the people making the government theirs again.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I'd have to agree with you on that; at this point the best we can do is try to take it back and reverse some of the more egregious errors made before we retook it.

[-] -1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Knock it off, bich! Oh wait, I get it now, tell them exactly how to do it so they'll valiantly fight it and do the opposite! Remind me to give your fanny a nice warm rubbing.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ fiftyfourforty: Are you saying that you would support detention without an end date, for any American Citizen, without due process or Habius Corpus.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

NO! I HATED THE DRAFT, HATED THE ARMY, HATED BEING IN INVOLUNTARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SERVITUDE. I hated the unconstitutional war in vietnam. My point is for the PTB it's just so much paper, that constitution.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I don't think so; what he's saying is that this would have gone through some way or other, and that an amorphous entity referred to as "they" has the ability to bend public policy to its wishes whether the American people agree with "them" or not. I fundamentally disagree with that attitude, mostly because if he's right then we might as well lay down and die right now, and there's no way in hell that's going to happen.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

In a moral sense, it shouldn't be happening. Technically, though, the thing is that Congress and the president can pass and sign whatever they want; it then lands on us as a citizenry to support legal watchdog groups such as the ACLU who are willing to challenge laws in court as necessary. Certain parts of the NDAA worry me, ACTA shouldn't have happened, and HR 347 probably should have been handled very differently.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@ ARod1993: I agree, but it is now the law of the land. Citizens could already have been detained, no notification will be given when someone is detained, under this law. All there will be is a missing persons report to government officials.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

It certainly does not "land on us as a citizenry to support legal watchdog groups such as the ACLU." Who elected the ACLU to represent our interests?

It lands on us to ignore, disrespect and spread the world of illegal laws. Fight them at the level of hearts and minds, at the ballot box and in the courts -- but don't depend on the self-appointed incompetent ACLU.

From Forum Post: Will ACLU Take the NDAA Bull by the Horns, or Just Milk the Cow? ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/will-aclu-take-the-ndaa-bull-by-the-horns-or-just-/ ) :

""I don't mind the ACLU milking issues so long as they're actually making a difference on those issues. But I don't see that their efforts made much of a difference with respect to the Patriot Act. And when I asked them yesterday "What, specifically, is the ACLU going to do to defeat the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012?" their answer was this:

"We are extremely active on this issue and are strategizing our best options in moving forward."

"I find that answer very disappointing. The ACLU had more than enough time to "strategize" about NDAA before Obama signed it, and they should have been ready to spring into action once he did. "

From the comments at same: [-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1370) 2 months ago

"The ACLU knows exactly what time it is and the score. Don't hold your breath waiting from them to bust us all out of the scheme.

"conspiracy theory?

"truth."

From Forum Post: H.R. 347: Get the Truth on the New 'Protest Law' ... But NOT from fundraising groups like the ACLU or unknowns like the PCJF ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/hr-347-get-the-truth-on-the-new-protest-law-but-no/ ) :

"the ACLU or PCJF [. . .] got caught with their pants down on HR347 and are trying to downplay the significance of the changes"

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

It also lands on us to make sure that the aforementioned watchdog groups do their damn jobs. Obviously there needs to be an element of widespread popular anger and general protest organized and operated much the same way that the anti-SOPA protests were organized. I was talking about going to them for legal assistance when everything else is in place and we need warm bodies with JDs in courthouses to attack the law. Yeah, I was surprised and more than a little pissed that they didn't act on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and HR347, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should abandon them.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

No argument. We just can't put all our chips in their basket.

[-] 1 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

Shhhh..... we need it kept a secret that we really can do anything that suits our whims!

[-] 4 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

In case you're wondering, the cat's pretty far out of the bag by now, so my silence won't really matter. I'm not going to ask you to come quietly because that's not going to happen either. Like I said, you can only do as you please if you break the watchdog groups and pack the courts, and the rest of us aren't going to let that happen.

[-] -1 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

Not really, the game will indeed play on as so many simply reject the very few realistic solutions to remedy our mayhem!

And we are paid very handsomely to do so. In fact, I dare you to even try stopping us or getting in the way of our money.

;-)

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Of course you're paid quite handsomely to behave in this manner; the last American traitor I know of who worked for free was Benedict Arnold. As far as I'm concerned, though, this is not going to last forever. Citizens United was a major gamble, and it's looking more and more like that's going to backfire on you. Once that happens, with the right combination of luck and determination you and your buddies are headed for skid row. If I'm lucky it'll be at least partially cleaned up by the time I get out of college. If not, then I guess I have my work cut out for me. Cheers!

[-] -2 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

You sir, are a worthy adversary and we do, of course, look forward to any future horse races!

I'll even be benevolent and advise you that you need to either bring a horse to enter the race, and you'll need at least 300 of them, or figure out how to destroy the Secret Service protected track.

Good luck to you and Godspeed!

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I thank you for the advice, and I look forward to running my best against yours.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

"Verrily I say unto you that pride goeth before a fall."

[-] 0 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

Do not trieth to mocketh the lord they gawd's manner of speecheth.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

That is a direct quote from The Bible, so do not presume that your "wisdom" is greater than the product of the ages.

[-] 0 points by JesusRepublican (110) 2 years ago

Silence HEATHEN for I shall smite thee mightily!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were God!, or that Jesus was a Republican. I though God was omniscient.

Anyway you strike me more like one of those hammerd-tin Jesus's they used to sell in Mexico for a nickle, only those at least had a certain charm.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

They cannot but the States can, absolutely: See Jefferson on nullification.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Why not? Apparently the president can.

[-] -1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

We can AND WILL do any damned thing we please.

The question is, what are any of you going to do about our Corporate Owned DC government?

I'll tell you, jack shit nothing.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@JesusDemocrat: That comment was the most Ignorant statement a sane person could make.