OK, so in the vein of more serious discussion of the issue at hand:
1) I'm not familiar with the proposed bill beyond some quick googling last night. While the wording of the section at issue is definitely chilling, I have no idea what the broader implications of passing the bill are. It is called the National Defense Funding Bill, so I imagine there are a number of security and dollar ramifications attached to it. If it's anything like a lot of bills, there's probably lots of pork in it for various reps and senators to give it their blessing to get this far, but that may not be the case.
2) If it gives the government the ability to detain US citizens without trial, will that happen? The acid test when the provision of the new law is used in this fashion would be a much more telling time IMO. I'm not at all familiar with constitutional law, but a cursory glance suggests that this law could be challenged as being unconstitutional, at least this part of it. I don't know how that kind of objection could be raised if the detainee has no trial rights, but again I am admittedly not a lawyer or very familiar with the US legal system.
3) Americans should be able to still contact Obama and urge him to veto this bill. They can definitely get involved with the ACLU or other civil liberty organizations to raise awareness of the dangers of this type of legislation. This could continue to be used in the event the bill is signed into law, and could be a means of having the law challenged as being unconstitutional in the event it is used.
4) Again, without knowing the entire scope of the legislation, it's hard to say where each congressman was coming from when deciding to pass this. Perhaps the liberty concerns were not raised, perhaps there is other funding issues such as increasing or cutting spending that received a higher profile when it was being debated. I don't know.
There are checks and balances in the system to be used on legislation like this. There is the standard presidential veto, which would need a separate vote in the HoR and Senate to be overturned, needing a 2/3 majority in both votes. There is a pocket veto, where the sitting President simply does nothing with the bill and it dies when the congress is adjourned. I don't think this can be applied here, because the President has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to act on the bill presented or it simply becomes law. The elections are far enough away that a pocket veto is unlikely for this bill. And as mentioned, there is the matter of the Supreme Court ruling on the law being unconstitutional should it be challenged.
|