General Discussion

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)

29. Like I said in my previous comment

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:20 AM

Dec 2011

the BILL does NOT give the president any 'additional powers' that he does not have currently.

And 'Clause (e)' was added to Section 1021 due to the Feinstein amendment and that clearly states that nothing in the section changes 'current law'

And Section 1022 states that US citizens are exempt from indefinite detention by the 'military'.

I gave you the specific Sections numbers to the bill in question so that you can look in the bill and can read the exact language of Sections 1021 and 1022.

You on the other hand sent me a link to an OP-Ed that that has it's Title written as a question, and the other link only to me to a log in page.

Yes, there are tons of 'articles' out there that all have differing 'opinions' and even some are filled with mistakes - and tons of folks all around the internet stating what they believe, but the text in the actual bill is what should be read instead of what other people say

Anyway, we can agree to disagree - all I wanted to do originally was to let you know that 'the bill' does not give 'The President' any 'additional' powers.

Ciao

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking News: Obama to sign NDAA bill BUT also will issue a signing statement [View all] Tx4obama Dec 2011 OP

Just heart that! gateley Dec 2011 #1

He's unhappy with the part that cancels Eureka and Warehouse 13. n/t Ian David Dec 2011 #2

I hate to admit it but I love Warehouse 13. Obama signing this NDAA not so much.. think Dec 2011 #5

They cancelled Warehouse 13? n/t one_voice Dec 2011 #6

Oh my God, .They cancelled Warehouse 13? Autumn Dec 2011 #22

It's a tv show.. one_voice Dec 2011 #25

Hysterical. nt gateley Dec 2011 #7

words speak louder than actions? aletier_v Dec 2011 #3

Which part does he disagree with? Anyone know? Autumn Dec 2011 #4

Is this Obama's first signing statement? jtrockville Dec 2011 #8

I'm not positive but I think Rachel said Obama's had less than 10. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #10

Yeah, and Bush had HUNDREDS. nt gateley Dec 2011 #31

Signing statements basically hold no weight. joshcryer Dec 2011 #36

This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Dec 2011 #9

You should realize that that was a RW theme karynnj Dec 2011 #17

This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Dec 2011 #38

No - that is not what happened karynnj Dec 2011 #46

Are future presidents free to disregard that signing statement? cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #11

Of course they are. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #14

well, it might matter in court, but not as much as congress' intent bigtree Dec 2011 #12

The parts he's unhappy with...BOO HOO NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #13

I agree Demeter Dec 2011 #18

My guess: Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #15

Executive authority, meaning frazzled Dec 2011 #16

problem they have bigtree Dec 2011 #23

Personally, I think ... frazzled Dec 2011 #26

I think you're making great sense and helped me understand it better. You should do this gateley Dec 2011 #32

It is in the hands of someone who used his authority to order the killing of two sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #37

and the issue cuts both ways Warren Stupidity Dec 2011 #44

That seems like a cop-out to me dreamnightwind Dec 2011 #19

No it does NOT do that. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #24

here are a few specifics DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #28

Like I said in my previous comment Tx4obama Dec 2011 #29

He owns it TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #20

This is GREAT news and Obama deserves props for this!!! Logical Dec 2011 #21

"I won't use this now codified presidential power, MadHound Dec 2011 #27

Why is it that folks want to use the bill to change 'current law'? Tx4obama Dec 2011 #30

Codified. It's the same term you ignored from me above. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #33

Relevant sections are 1031 and 1032 MFrohike Dec 2011 #34

The numbers of those two sections are 'now' 1021 and 1022 Tx4obama Dec 2011 #35

I see MFrohike Dec 2011 #39

That's okay - for a couple days I was telling folks the wrong numbers too Tx4obama Dec 2011 #40

It codifies the Bush powers of being able to indefinitely detain "enemy combatants" MadHound Dec 2011 #45

Maddow: Breaking news segment video regarding NDAA bill & Obama's Signing Statement - VIDEO LINK Tx4obama Dec 2011 #41

if the bill is so super extra double good, as clearly explained here on DU piratefish08 Dec 2011 #42

It has nothing to do with being clear or not. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #43