Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

redgreenandblue

(2,088 posts)
Wed May 23, 2012, 02:24 PM May 2012

About that NDAA ruling.

I'm not sure how to phrase this.

I know the "eleven dimensional chess theory" (i.e. the hypothesis that Obama is actually deeply progressive and doing whatever is possible given the circumstances to manipulate the system in favor of long-term progress, at the cost of seeming un-progressive in the short term) is somewhat disputed here. And maybe its a bit far fetched to argue in that direction.
But I have always been deeply puzzled that a constitutional scholar would sign something into law that is so clearly and unquestionably unconstitutional and actually ask for more than was initially written into the bill. I mean, there is simply no way on earth an impartial court could have ruled any other way.

A possible explanation in my opinion is that what actually happened here is that all the things that were in the bill were already made inofficial policy under the Bush administration, and what the bill basically did is say "this is what we are already doing, make it legal". And by specifically asking for certain additions to the bill the Obama administration made sure that it was actually a complete list of all of the controversial measures that were already in effect.

One could speculate that it was Obama's intent to clearly formulate out all of the things that already have been inofficial policy in one document, so that a court could have a ruling on it. This would both set a precedent and move all of these policies from the realm of "unofficial" shadow government out into the open, making it easier to roll back the entire package at some point.

I know there is a lot of controversy over how to evaluate Obama's legacy. Personally I think I'll hold out on passing jugdement until the second term has passed.

Flame away

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
About that NDAA ruling. (Original Post) redgreenandblue May 2012 OP
Something, something... occam's razor, something something. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #1
That is certainly a point to be made. redgreenandblue May 2012 #2
You don't think invading the Vice President's house should be a serious crime? ieoeja May 2012 #3
 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
1. Something, something... occam's razor, something something.
Wed May 23, 2012, 03:29 PM
May 2012

In general, I think it's safer to work on the assumption that people mean what they say. The alternative usually requires assuming that they are lying and projecting our own values, hopes and goals onto the reasons why they are doing so.

redgreenandblue

(2,088 posts)
2. That is certainly a point to be made.
Wed May 23, 2012, 03:38 PM
May 2012

Maybe it's just naivete on my part. I just haven't gotten over "hope and change" yet I suppose...

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
3. You don't think invading the Vice President's house should be a serious crime?
Wed May 23, 2012, 04:00 PM
May 2012

Because that was the only major change to NDAA.

It also made it more difficult to charge protestors with certain crimes. But I assume you were referring to something that increased, not decreased, law-and-order powers.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»About that NDAA ruling.