Judge Strikes Down Provision of Anti-Terror Law

[lawrocket 3]

A federal court enjoined the indefinite detention powers of the National Defense Authorization Act for American citizens on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=174

Section 1021 states:

Quote

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid of such enemy forces.

The court held that this is violative of the 1st and probably 5th amendments because the "substantially supports" language could be used to prevent people from writing about what is going on. A reporter may be detained for quoting a jihadist under the reading of the statute, for example.

The government's defense to this allegation can be narrowed down to "We would never do that!"

Yeah, right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Glad the decision went that way.

Wish the language had been even more sweeping, though.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[ryoder 1,590]

Perhaps what we need is a rule that says when a bill is ruled unconstitutional, every legislator who voted for it is ejected from office and an election is held to replace them. Then they might consider actually reading the Constitution and the bills they are voting for.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Perhaps what we need is a rule that says when a bill is ruled unconstitutional, every legislator who voted for it is ejected from office and an election is held to replace them. Then they might consider actually reading the Constitution and the bills they are voting for.

I would vote for that!
Accountability! What a concept!
Funny how so many of them are lawyers, too.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[lawrocket 3]

So an unelected judge used a highly unusual and unprecedented step of striking down a law passed by a strong majority of democratically elected representatives of the People.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

So an unelected judge used a highly unusual and unprecedented step of striking down a law passed by a strong majority of democratically elected representatives of the People.

,...because it was not lawfully passed as it contravened the superior constitutional law under which the democratically elected representatives of the people were constrained.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

So an unelected judge used a highly unusual and unprecedented step of striking down a law passed by a strong majority of democratically elected representatives of the People.

Ha ha. Where's that sarcasm icon when you need it?

[muff528 3]

Quote

A federal court enjoined the indefinite detention powers of the National Defense Authorization Act for American citizens on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=174

Section 1021 states:

Quote

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid of such enemy forces.

The court held that this is violative of the 1st and probably 5th amendments because the "substantially supports" language could be used to prevent people from writing about what is going on. A reporter may be detained for quoting a jihadist under the reading of the statute, for example.

The government's defense to this allegation can be narrowed down to "We would never do that!"

Yeah, right.

To me, the first sentence seems more disconcerting than the second. On the surface it looks like it explicitly gives the President "the authority to detain..." based on his own king-like personal determination or whim. The "substantially supported" language seems like a minor concern when the Pres can simply "determine" whatever he wants. I'm sure there is other language in the law that clarifies that.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

So an unelected judge used a highly unusual and unprecedented step of striking down a law passed by a strong majority of democratically elected representatives of the People.

,...because it was not lawfully passed as it contravened the superior constitutional law under which the democratically elected representatives of the people were constrained.

....in the opinion of that one guy.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

So an unelected judge used a highly unusual and unprecedented step of striking down a law passed by a strong majority of democratically elected representatives of the People.

,...because it was not lawfully passed as it contravened the superior constitutional law under which the democratically elected representatives of the people were constrained.

You used "emocratically elected representatives" and "constrained" in the same sentence.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239