The NDAA sections specifically allow “indefinite detention of persons apprehended within the United States without charge or trial.”
That, however, violates “The Texas Constitution, the limits of federal power authorized by Article I, Section 8″ and “the legal doctrine of Posse Comitatus.
Oh, and it also violates habeas corpus, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the legislation explains.
That would be the right to petition government, being free from unreasonable searches, the prohibition of the deprivation of liberty without due process, a speedy trial, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and others.
Since those sections, 1021 and 1022, “Violate portions of federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Texas Constitution,” they are “invalid and illegal” in Texas, the legislation says.
But it goes further. A lot.
It specifies that “A person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce a statute, a rule or regulation, an order, or any law of the United States in violation of this subchapter.”
Such violations would be punishable by a jail term of a year, a fine of not more than $10,000.
“Rep. Larson will likely be derided by the establishment, so if you live in Texas, he deserves your praise and relentless support on this issue,” Boldin told WND. “If you live anywhere else in the country, the time to act is now. Get on the phone with your state legislators and press them to show the same kind of courage that Lyle Larson has done. When enough states stand up and say NO to unconstitutional federal acts, there’s not much that Obama and his gang can do about it. The Constitution and your liberty will win.”
The organization has reported that sources suggest that at least 10 other states will be considering similar legislation in the coming year.
“And potentially dozens of counties and cities can be expected to move along these lines as well,” the report said.
Already, cooperating with the NDAA provisions are illegal in Virginia. Michigan is considering a similar move, and more than 15 local communities have take the same action.
The pushback against the NDAA started with a few local communities in Colorado before Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell signed House Bill 1160, making that state the first to pass a law not only rejecting the federal act, but fully banning any state agency from cooperating with the feds on it.
WND previously has reported on a court case over the sections, where the Obama administration has battled vigorously for its right to detention.
The fight is on appeal right now, after U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest issued a permanent injunction against the sections.
In her order, Forrest had written, “The government put forth the qualified position that plaintiffs’ particular activities, as described at the hearing, if described accurately, if they were independent, and without more, would not subject plaintiffs to military detention under Section 1021.”
But she continued, “The government did not – and does not – generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under Section 1021.”
The case was brought last January by a number of writers and reporters, led by New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The journalists contend the controversial section allows for detention of citizens and residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to anyone engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
The lawsuit alleges the law is vague and could be read to authorize the arrest and detention of people whose speech or associations are protected by the First Amendment. They wonder whether interviewing a member of al-Qaida would be considered “substantial support.”
“Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention – potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity – and that specificity is absent from Section 1021,” the judge wrote.
Dan Johnson, a spokesman with People Against the NDAA, told WND it took only hours for the government to file an appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
“It most definitely tells us something about their intent,” he told WND.
He cited Obama’s signing statement, when the bill was made law, that he would not use the provision allowing detention of American citizens without probable cause in military facilities.
“Just because someone says something doesn’t mean they’re not lying,” he said.
Forrest had said the law “impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protection to meet the requirements of due process.”