Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What is the Current Status of the NDAA?

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 21, 2011, 9:16 a.m. EST by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

According to GovTrack.us, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 ("NDAA") should have been sent to the White House for Bushbama's signature after 14 December 2011:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540

Yet we can find no listing of the NDAA in the WhiteHouse.gov Pending, Signed or Vetoed Legislation sections as of 9:00am ET 21 December 2011:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/legislation

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/pending-legislation

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/vetoed-legislation

As of now, four things could happen:

  1. If the president signs and dates the bill, it becomes law.

  2. If Congress is in session, and the president does not sign the bill within 10 days of receiving it, the bill becomes law without his signature.

  3. The president may "veto" the entire bill. The bill goes back to Congress for a second vote, in which it must get a two-thirds majority of votes in each chamber in order to become law.

  4. If Congress adjourns within 10 days of giving the bill to the president, and he does not sign it, the bill dies. This is called a "pocket veto."

So the 64-dollar question is...

WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE NDAA?

IronBoltBruce http://AmerikanReich.com

23 Comments

23 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

The status is that Obama is a fraud and the NDAA is the death of the constitution and is open for any president that wants to abuse it's power.

“This bill authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.”

“This legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. In short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution and gives enormous power to the government or the state. I want friends on both sides of the aisle to understand this; we are giving the state more power over individuals with this bill. It’s the wrong direction.”

“Our children deserve a world without end, not a war without end. Our children deserve a world where they know the government will protect them, that it is not going to rule over them by invading their very thoughts and going, as the PATRIOT Act does, going into their banking records or into their educational records. We have to keep the government out of people's lives and stop the government from getting more into war which gives the government more control over people. This is the time we take a stand for the Constitution and a stand for a government which is smaller when it comes on matters of war.”

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=272606

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

The bill is a constitutional fraud. If any judges say it is constitutional then they are constitutional frauds. I believe it to be the codification of a military coup. Obama has no power, his dog has more freedom and choice than he does. He's the mouthpiece of traitors to America.

Obama deception. Democracy deception.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 7 years ago

Lets hope and pray for a pocket veto.

[-] 2 points by Idaltu (662) 7 years ago

This article sort of says not yet signed....but shows the implication with freedom of speech on the internet.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/269540/20111219/ndaa-sopa-twitter.htm

[-] 1 points by millerwebsites (2) 7 years ago

SPREAD THE WORD! Congress already passed this bill 93-7; if Obama vetoes it, they only need 2/3rd's majority to override! THEY ALREADY HAVE 2/3RDS! WE NEED A REVOLUTION before the most active and most knowledgeable among us get arrested and shipped away! FUCK THIS GOVERNMENT.

[-] 1 points by millerwebsites (2) 7 years ago

2: If Congress is in session, and the president does not sign the bill within 10 days of receiving it, the bill becomes law without his signature. Is it not likely that this is what is happening? - Law is only fluffly, vague, and difficult to understand by the majority because the constitution has been ignored and loop-holed around by the 1% and their bought off politicians. REFORM WITHIN THE SYSTEM IS NO LONGER AN OPTION, WE NEED A REVOLUTION! END THIS LEFT VS. RIGHT PUPPET SHOW. COME TOGETHER AS ONE AND TACKLE EACH ISSUE AS ONE.

[-] 1 points by drghs3 (9) 7 years ago

The bill was presented to Obama on 12/21. Congress adjourned. If Obama doesn't sign in 10 days (Sundays excepted) it will not be law. By my count, the 10th day is January 2.

But don't cheer if January 2 comes and goes and it isn't signed. The death of a bill by pocket veto is abstract. In the Pocket Veto Case in the 1920s, a pocket veto killed bill went into effect, was challenged, and ruled dead almost three years later.

I think a pocket veto lets Obama have it several ways. He can claim he pocket vetoed but will have the powers of the bill (and its budget will go into effect. No one will challenge the budget part.

To challenge the detention provisions you must be detained and challenge the illegality of the detention. That could take years to work through the courts. So the law will be effectively de facto even if dead de jure.

Put simply, a pocket veto will render the law dead but only abstractly, it will be real until a court rules it dead by pocket veto when some provision is challenged in a by a court ruling on a case or controversy.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 7 years ago

UPDATE: The NDAA (listed as H.R.1540) is now officially pending Bushbama's signature:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/pending-legislation

There is a place to comment.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

It's still listed as pending as of 11:11AM on December 25th, 2011. The House is not in session and I think the Congress adjourned on the 23rd. I'm not completely sure, but I believe this means a pocket veto...

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 7 years ago

Don't think it will be sadly :( The NDAA has to be passed as it is a bill for the budget of the military. A similar bill is passed every year for about 48 years I think, though without the extension of the Authorization of the Use of Military Doc.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

I honestly don't know. I don't think he'll pocket the bill given the consequences of failing to fund the DoD, but at this point the clock has almost run out. The ten-day period doesn't include Sundays, so if the bill isn't signed by the end of tomorrow that's it.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

I don't know the answer to your question. My guess is that possibilities 3 and 4 are not actually on the table, just because this is a large spending bill, and if this bill does not become law large portions of government will be forced to shut down because the legal mechanism for funding will not exist.

I don't think he likes this bill, and would probably prefer it become law without his signature.

Congress is still in session, since the repelicans in the house have not signed the tax break extension and are attempting to get the Senate to come back.

My bet is that he is attempting to signal to both houses his own displeasure with the bill,

and perhaps use it as leverage.

Just a guess.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 7 years ago

What makes you think he doesn't like this Bill? HIS administration asked to have the language removed that exempted US citizens from the military detainment sections.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

did he? Is that what he said?

Why don't you find me a quote, with a link -

otherwise I'll just think you are one more liar - just like the rest who insisted he was a MUslim, born in AFriCa

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 7 years ago

Don't you dare lump me in with that crowd....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA

I also find it interesting that the Young Turks clip that referenced that has been removed....interesting.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

I've seen statements from Holder, Mueller, and others within his admin saying they don't like it, its unnecessary.

I assume that with so many of them making those kinds of statements it must be a reflection of the administrations position.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 7 years ago

Or its a political ploy to deflect, not reflect, the administrations positions. Are you accusing the Democratic Senator Chair of lying?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

haven't seen the statement, could be he misinterpreted something. Could be he's telling the truth. I don't know - what did he say?

I would point out that Levin and McCain both came up with this bill. Rare bi-partisanship.

I don't know why Levin got involved - but McCain is rumored to be head of the International Repelican Institute -

a principle funder of Otpor:

Otpor was funded by repelicans

  • Freedom House (Mowat, op. cit.)
  • International Republican Institute (IRI) (Mowat, op. cit.)
  • National Endowment for Democracy
  • Open Society Institute
  • USAID – Financed T-shirts, stickers, etc _ United States Institute of Peace (Dobbs, op. cit.)

SourceWatch - Otpor

see also:

Wiki on Otpor

see also:

So . . . I dunno. Maybe Levin knows what's going on, and maybe he's just another tool.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 7 years ago

Did you listen to the clip I sent you?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

I'm on dial-up. movies and sound tracks are out.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 7 years ago

Again then, What is the Current Status of the NDAA? If you don't know, you need not reply (again) asserting same. We get it. Thanks.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 7 years ago

Again then, What is the Current Status of the NDAA?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

. . . um . . . ah . . .

. . . limbo? . . . .

It's only the 21st, we won't really know before the 24th or 25th at the earliest, unless he actually signs it . . .