NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About
August 12, 2012
Print Version (http://blacklistednews.com/?news_id=20985&print=1)
Source: Liberty Blitzkrieg (http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2012/08/10/ndaa-the-most-important-lawsuit-in-american-history-that-no-one-is-talking-about/)
Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week's hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA (http://belligerentact.org/). In case you don't remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540)to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won't use it. Thanks pal!
In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment. By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal elite political and economic oligarchy.
Tangerine Bolen is one the lead plaintiffs in the suit against the government and she penned a powerful piece for the UK's Guardian. Here are some key quotes:
I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.
Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.
This past week's hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction.
Full article here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution).
I would also take the time to watch this short video from one of the co-counsels on the case as to exactly what the government is arguing in court. Not a word from the mainstream media on the most important court case in American history. One that will decide the fate of a law that will effectively dismantle at least a third of The Bill of Rights.
Please share this with everyone that cares about Liberty and The Republic.
Mike
CO-Counsel speaks after #NDAA hearing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mq_CyMK-KE#)
Like many of our Church and Forum Members, I'm not an American, so I am not as aware of the American Bill of Rights as I, arguably, should. So following is a short history of the US Bill of Rights and how it and the English Bill of Rights effect the English speaking nations today. Pay attention so that you know what you can lose.
History
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The first series of amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789,[1][2] formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States. While twelve amendments were passed by Congress, only ten were originally passed by the states. Of the remaining two, one was adopted as the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the other technically remains pending before the states.
Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only White men, excluding both Niggers and Red-Niggers - which have since been reneged upon - and women. These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Right's text, but were well understood and applied.
English Bill of Rights
One of the earliest documents used in drafting the American Bill of Rights was the English Bill of Rights of 1689, one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law. The English Bill of Rights differed substantially in form and intent from the American Bill of Rights, because it was intended to address the rights of citizens as represented by Parliament against the Crown. However, some of its basic tenets were adopted and extended by the U.S. Bill of Rights, including:
* The right of petition.
* An independent judiciary (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself).
* Freedom from taxation by royal (executive) prerogative, without agreement by Parliament (legislators).
* Freedom from a peace-time standing army.
* Freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for their defence, as allowed by law.
* Freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign.
* Freedom of speech in Parliament.
* Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail.
* Freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial.
It is argued by many that British Commonwealth nations inherited the English Bill of Rights upon reaching nationhood. Australia, for example, has a constitution, but no Bill of Rights. It is argued that the rights and privileges contained in the English Bill of Rights are included in the Australian Constitution, and that the rights of Australians are enshrined in the Rule of Law as enacted by an elected Parliament rather than the Crown. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, does not have a written constitution. The UK constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives.
United States Bill of Rights
1st Protects the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government September
2nd Protects an individual's right to bear arms
3rd Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers out of war time
4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause
5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy
6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel
7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law
8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment
9th Protects rights not enumerated in the constitution
10th Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution
11th Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders. Lays the foundation for sovereign immunity
12th Revises presidential election procedures
13th Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime
14th Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues
15th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude
16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax
17th Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote
18th Establishes prohibition of alcohol (repealed by Twenty-first Amendment)
19th Establishes women's suffrage
20th Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the "lame duck amendment"
21st Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment and prohibits violations of state laws regarding alcohol
22nd Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President's term, he or she can be elected to a further two terms)
23rd Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College
24th Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes
25th Codifies the Tyler Precedent; defines the process of presidential succession
26th Establishes the official voting age to be 18 years old
27th Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress