Tag Archive for: NDAA

Feds Trump & the Constitutional Standard

The Constitution is not a living breathing document.

When our government goes against the Constitution for whatever reason, then they are breaking the law.

Before we begin to hold our government up to the standard of the Constitution, we must get educated. Only then will we restore the Republic.

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of “The KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube

Feds Trump & the Constitutional Standard resources and references


Silence Do Good

The NDAA, a Legal Analysis

The N.D.A.A, or the National Defense Authorization Act is not what you think it is. It’s worse. To put it in emotional terms the NDAA is the mark of living under tyranny. You now can be detained, or murdered by your government without the due process rights as stipulated in the Constitution. However, the Constitutional scholars in the Justice Department (you know the ones who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution) believe that the N.D.A.A. is entirely Constitutional and doesn’t violate our rights. Inspires confidence. Doesn’t it?

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has caused a great deal of controversy. Congressmen all over the nation have defended their vote in favor of these sections in spite of the criticism that these sections allow the President to detain US Citizens indefinitely. These Congressmen have said over and over again, with great vigor, that these sections specifically exclude US Citizens. They justify their position by quoting language from these sections that many experts, from all across the political spectrum, believe to be vague and potentially dangerous.

In an effort to shed light on these highly controversial sections, I have created a video presentation that will walk the viewer through these sections.

I am hoping that We The People will become better informed about these potentially dangerous sections and in turn, educate our elected representatives so that we can all work together to secure the blessings of Liberty for our Posterity.

Many have said that these provisions are necessary to fight terrorism. Terrorism or not, Americans are entitled to Constitutional protections and simply invoking the term terrorism should not nullify the age-old right to due process. We should never trade Liberty for security. In the words of William Pitt: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

Please stand for Liberty. Share this video with all who will hear and even with those who appear disinterested. Liberty is worth the inconvenience. It is not our Liberty, it belongs to our future.

The NDAA & Future Crime

Did you know that under the NDAA the President can take action against you even if you haven’t committed a crime, but there’s a suspicion that you might be a threat to national security. You’re going to hear it straight from King Barry’s mouth. This is tyranny out in the open. It can’t be any clearer. What is scarier is that Congress and our supposedly conservative Constitutional Republicans think it’s ok! Are you kitting me!

No More Lies, Just Liberty! (NDAA)

On December 1, 2011 I published an article that gave a straightforward analysis of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). My follow up post on December 7th spoke to the inadequacies of the Feinstein Amendment. And here, as the 220th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights passes by, I can’t help but wonder what has happened to truth?

I would like to know how Congress can justify just one hour of debate over something that is so important, so controversial, and so questionable. I truly enjoyed Congressman Jerrold Nadler’s argument on the floor. He pointed out that many Constitutional Jurists and Military experts are vehemently opposed to this bill, indicating the very destruction of the rights we are trying to protect from terrorist attack. He also did an amazing thing; he shut down the argument that we must pass this bill with these sections so the Military will get funded. He explained that they had plenty of time to fail the bill, take out these malignant provisions, bring the bill back and pass it before the end of the week. What would be so hard about that? Why couldn’t they do just what Rep. Nadler proposed?

As I watched these debates and listened to the arguments over the last few days, I have become so very perplexed at how those who deny the very language of this bill can do so with such conviction. There is such a dishonesty associated with what they are saying. Time and time again I have heard that this bill specifically excluded US Citizens. NO IT DOES NOT. You have to be illiterate or purposefully disingenuous to put forth such an argument. The section specifically says: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Legally speaking, stating that an agency is “not required” to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations. They are legislators, they have to know that!

On top of that, section 1032(4) specifically provides a military waiver anytime national security dictates a need! “The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.” There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government determines a “national security interest”.

This morning I found a jewel, a light bulb came on in my mind. Something that made me want to scream out loud! I was in the middle of a twitter argument over this bill and this person was absolutely adamant that the language of the bill stated that military detention was “inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens.” I finally asked my new twitter friend to send me a link to the bill because I could not find that language. What I got was a link to the Bill Summary and Status, the CRS Summary. I could not believe what I was seeing. The very summary put out by Congress describing this bill was a blatant misrepresentation of the bill itself. The summary stated that section 1032 had specific language that said the detention provisions were “inapplicable to US Citizens”. That is not an accurate summary, it is blatant propaganda! The language, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” is not even close to saying detention is inapplicable to US Citizens. How many Congressmen just read the summary and based their entire argument on that lie?

The thing I find most frustrating is knowing that I am not the only one out there spreading the truth. I have heard statements by Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee, and others. I watched the debate in Congress. I know engaged citizens have been contacting their Congressmen and Senators and passing on the truth. I really believe if at least a handful of people have enough information to make an informed and educated decision, there is no excuse to believe a lie. Yet, that is where we are. I can see why so many are apt to believe in a conspiracy, because when the truth is so important, so compelling, and people will still believe a lie, we must reconcile it with ourselves as a sinister plot. It is human nature. The truth is out there, I know, I have written about it at least 3 times. Don’t believe a lie because it makes you feel safe. Listen to the words of Justice Blackstone, as quoted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84.

“To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution”.

This is EXACTLY what these provision in the NDAA do. We do not have to keep these provisions to fund the military. They are completely irrelevant to that need.

The truth is out there. You have a responsibility to it. Our elected Congressmen and Senators have a responsibility to it. Don’t let them get away with promulgating a misrepresentation of that truth. Don’t allow them to keep telling us we have to eat garbage because the vegetables are in there too. We must know that we cannot have peace from terrorism without having Liberty in America! Don’t sell our Liberty for a little temporary security. It is not our Liberty to sell. It was bought with the blood of our fathers and mothers, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for ages and millions not yet born. This Liberty belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and their children. We must stand for Liberty today, or our children will bow tomorrow! Mark these “leaders” and don’t forget the attack they have perpetrated on the most precious gift America possesses – Liberty!

SB1867 Revisited (NDAA)

On December 1, 2011 I published an article that gave a straightforward analysis of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). There seems to be quite a bit of controversy on this matter. Some feel that the citizens who are concerned with their liberty should be dismissed as alarmist, “Chicken Littles.”

Additionally, I recently discovered congressional aides are telling people there are no worries about NDAA because Mrs. Feinstein’s Amendment, SA1456, saves the day. No, it does not. SA1456 is more political maneuvering that is full of empty language that has no real effect what-so-ever. The language states:

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

With the “Chicken Littles” and Mrs. Feinstein in mind, I would like to address just a few more points on this issue and then I am done with this subject. I am confident I have done my part to educate on the truth. Unlike the popular media today, I do not feel it is my responsibility to force anyone into my opinion. What you do with the truth, is up to you. I do feel that given what we know from history, both ancient and recent, there is cause for concern.

First, the mere fact that the provisions in question are stuffed inside a must-pass bill like NDAA, instead of standing muster on their own, is worthy of great suspicion. Take into account that every time these provisions have been presented independently, Congress has consistently denied them; case in point, “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”.

Secondly, these bills are written by lawyers, men and women who are trained to be wordsmiths. They are trained to use just the right words to ensure that the desired effect is unavoidable. Many attorneys (including this one) have concluded that the language in these sections is not direct and clear enough to exclude US citizens. The natural conclusion is that the drafters did not want to exclude US Citizens. First of all, Constitutional rights are not granted to non-citizens. So, why the legislative gymnastics to declare that fact? If the bill is aimed at non-citizen terrorists, then the legislative gymnastics are unnecessary. The proponents of this bill argue that these sections specifically limit actions of the government to al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists involved in 9/11, that Section 1032 does not cover US citizens, and that section 1032(b)(1) specifically excludes US citizens. As an attorney, I contend that if the drafters really WANTED to exclude US Citizens, they would have used language that is common to similar legislative acts.

Here is what I mean: In section 1032(b)(1) of the NDAA, the language specifically says that, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Legally speaking, stating that an agency is “not required” to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2) establishes an exemption from prosecution for employment discrimination violations if the circumstances are based in religious governance. The language specifically states, “it shall not be an unlawful employment practice…” and then goes on to list the organizations that are exempt from the provisions of this federal law. Florida’s statute § 1002.20(3)(b), defining K-12 student and parent rights regarding immunizations states, “The parent of any child attending a public or private school shall be exempt from the school immunization requirements upon meeting any of the exemptions in accordance with the provisions of s. 1003.22(5). These provisions are very clear that these laws shall not apply to these specific segments of the population. They do not say they are not required, they say they SHALL NOT or SHALL BE EXEMPT. And neither does SA1456.

Finally, we cannot lose sight of the real issue. The federal government can never have the right to suspend the Constitutional rights of US Citizens without due process, because the government is not the source of those rights. All other argument against or for these provisions become irrelevant when there is even a possibility of US Citizens having their Constitutional rights suspended either temporarily or permanently at the discretion of the federal government.

One prominent journalist,” attempting to refute the criticisms of concerned citizens, said that “The United States Constitution is a compact between the American people and the government they created. It endows Americans with protections against U.S.-government overreach.” In fact, the Constitution doesn’tendow citizens with anything. The founders in the Declaration of Independence clearly state that these inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator and in the words of Patrick Henry “the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect US Citizens from an unlawful and arbitrary government. This bill clearly leans in the opposite direction and this is something every citizen should be concerned about.

Congress Decides Constitution is a Threat to National Security (NDAA)

The principles of habeas corpus and due process extend as far back as 12th century England. These principles were among the most fearfully guarded liberties among America’s founders.   If truth be told it was abuses of due process and an unresponsive government (not simply burdensome taxes) that were the primary causes of the American Revolution. Notice the words of these distinguished Americans:

Ø “Trial by jury in civil causes…trial by jury in criminal causes, [and] the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus…all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans.” ~Richard Henry Lee

Ø “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:  For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences” ~Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

Ø “The founders of our nation considered the right of trial by jury…an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a ‘safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign.” ~Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 1979

Yet, here we are today in the midst of a startling attack on some of our most fundamental liberties.   As I write this, our Senate debates a bill that will undermine the very due process rights that thousands of brave souls have bled and died for.

Senate Bill 1867, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, is the means by which Congress funds the military and is therefore a “must pass bill.”  No politician wants to be the one who voted to defund the military, especially if you are a so-called conservative.   Those who would be disposed to usurp the Liberties of this land take these must pass bills and convert them into Trojan horses.  This particular Trojan horse puts the due process rights of American citizens in serious jeopardy through sections 1031 and 1032.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of this bill are completely unrelated to the funding of the military.  These sections, we are told, will ‘save us from terrorists’.  The plan is to remove the Constitutional right of habeas corpus and persons deemed to be terrorists will be detained indefinitely, out of the country.  The built-in premise is that the right of habeas corpus is somehow a threat to national security. 

Who wouldn’t want to stop terrorists? Don’t we all want to be safe?  Aren’t terrorist the very demons we should be fighting today?  If you don’t support this bill you are a terrorist sympathizer.

Am I a terrorist sympathizer simply because I believe that you shouldn’t have to circumvent the Constitution to do your job? Particularly considering the very job description these Congressmen swore to do was to “support and defend the Constitution.”   It is mindboggling that those with the power and responsibility to PROTECT LIBERTY are the very ones who will justify its destruction.  Here are the arguments put forth in favor of these dangerous provisions:

1.       These Sections Specifically Limit Actions Of The Government To Al-Qaeda And Taliban Terrorists Involved In 9/11

False.  This refers to sec. 1031(b) Covered Persons: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition forces…

I suppose all would be well, if this were the end of this section.  However, the devil is always in the details.  Attorneys are trained to look for loopholes, and those who wrote this bill were attorneys, so they are either ignorant or inserting holes to provide doors for future activity.  Door No. 1:

…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Belligerent act? There you have it, the open door to include just about anyone.  Now don’t think these words are not well planned and don’t for one minute assume you know their definitions.  Remember John McCain and Joe Leiberman’s  “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”?  This act failed, but that has not stopped John McCain.  This Enemy Belligerent Act defines a Belligerent as: an individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent…an individual who: 1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Hostilities? And the door swings wide open.

Next argument:

2.       Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citzens.

False.  Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be “a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Sounds pretty limiting right?  Well, here’s Door No. 2, section (4) “The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.”

There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government  determines a “national security interest”.  But those that planted these loopholes are not finished.

The next argument alleges:

3.       Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens

False.  Section 1032(b)(1) states “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”  Is this the part that is supposed to stop the government from detaining US Citizens?  Any decent attorney would tell you that the “prohibitive language” in this statement is a bit ambiguous.  What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn’t extend to US Citizens.  That means they don’t have to detain them, but what if they want to!  Open Door No. 3, let all who enter beware!

All this sounds a bit alarmist right?  Why do I think the language is cleverly crafted to be more than it appears?  Because those who support this bill do not WANT to protect the liberty of US Citizens.  They will, when cornered with the truth, tell you that any US Citizens who is involved with terrorists “DOES NOT deserve Constitutional rights.”  The idea that US Citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights is a very frightening statement.  But put that in conjunction with the understanding that it is the government, specifically this current administration, that gets to CHOOSE which citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights.

Still sounds alarmist right? After all we are talking about terrorists.  So you don’t like terrorist?  I don’t either.  But I do love Liberty and I do fear the power of unlimited government.  And what happens when the government determines you to fit the definition of a terrorist?  Janet Napolatano says that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion fit the bill. Which US Citizens DO YOU think should not have protections under the Constitution? Which one of our rights is a threat to national security and need to be curtailed or eliminated?  Remember William Pitt’s words, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.   It is the argument of tyrants.  It is the creed of slaves.”

Terrorism is real and we must combat it. But you cannot have peace without Liberty!  According to Benjamin Franklin, “Anyone who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserves neither Liberty nor security”. He specifically said, “temporary security” because he knew that being “safe” is a fleeting feeling.  You may think trading just a small piece of Liberty today is worth feeling safe.  However, tomorrow safety will fly away when a bigger boogey man turns the corner.  Then will you be willing to trade a little more? Remember, the funny thing about temporarily giving anything to the government is that you don’t get it back and they always want more.  Two words: Income Tax.

John Adams stated in his inaugural address in 1797, if “our Government can be influenced by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror or intrigue the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us and not we the people who govern ourselves.”  He was telling us that when the government operates under the motivating factor of fear, those that scare us rule us.  He continued with his warning by saying, “If we are to have a free republican government we must have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it.”  Our only hope of Liberty, our only hope of peace, is through the Constitution, not by circumventing it.

Congress took an oath to PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; they did not take an oath to defeat terrorism.  They must stick with their oath; because, the principles in the Constitution do not change; the definition of terrorist apparently changes based on political ideology.

Ronald Reagan called America the last bastion of hope.  He was remembering a statement by Daniel Webster, “Hold onto the Constitution and to the republic for which she stands.  Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6000 years may never happen again.  Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”  Our Congress has an obligation to us, an obligation to our children, and an obligation to the world.

We must stand for Liberty today or our children will bow tomorrow.  I stand with Patrick Henry when he said, “Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”