Breaking News: Obama to sign NDAA bill BUT also will issue a signing statement

[frazzled]

26. Personally, I think ...

they feel that there is a huge Constitutional error in this bill, and that in the long run it cannot stand judicial scrutiny. They feel safe for the time being knowing that they themselves now have the ability to forestall its worst provisions, because the president has leeway (and will sign a statement of interpretation and intention on how it will be enforced, or rather not enforced). Their short-term alternative was to have no funding for a huge swath of the government.

Also, if I am correct, the National Defense Authorization Act must be enacted each year, to specify the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense. It is wholly possible that the Defense Authorization Act of 2013 may contain no such provision. So it won't be an issue for the next president, whoever it is. I could be wrong in that the provision stays while the budget specifications change: but it is always possible to change the offending provision (just as it was added), either legislatively or through the courts.

That's why I'm not too worried about it for the moment; it's in relatively sane hands. We are right to worry about the future, but we must remember that no law is eternal and every law is open to radical change. The Supreme Court did not let Bush get away with revocation of habeas corpus, and I don't think they will let any president in the future.

It's a bad precedent, but it is not a judicial precedent, and thus far easier to change. I hope I'm making sense and not excuses.