Government Defies Federal Judge on NDAA

When 4th District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional, there was wide rejoicing across the Internet. Posts from prominent civil liberties activists, like journalist David Seaman, rang out with VIICCTOOORRYY! A Russia Today newscast titled the ruling “NDAA Shot Down, But Threats Remain” seemed to imply that the fight was over, or “on hold.” But it was only just beginning.

Do you remember, from your high school or college government courses, where they talked about the court having “neither the power of the sword nor the purse?” That means the High Courts of the United States cannot force the government to accept their ruling. They can heavily imply it, but they have no power to force government compliance. When the Supreme Court ruled against the government in Worcester v. Georgia, President Andrew Jackson is famous for having responded: “[Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

The tyrannical U.S. Government has taken the exact same tack with the ruling against them on the NDAA. But first, let’s quickly recap exactly how weak the government case in favor of the NDAA actually was. In Hedges v. Obama, the government routinely avoided the judge’s questions and demands:

The Court: When we are talking about cases which have used the phrase ‘substantially supported’ and said that that is a valid criterion under the AUMF or of the legislation, that’s not the same thing as saying that . . . any court has found, one way or the other, that ‘substantially supported’ has an understandable meaning to an ordinary citizen?

The Government: It’s true that the courts have not expressly ruled that, that’s right.

The Court: Give me an example. Tell me what it means to substantially support associated forces.

Government: I’m not in a position to give specific examples.

The Court: Give me one.

Government: I’m not in a position to give one specific example.

Later…

The Court: Assume you were just an American citizen and you’re reading the statute and you wanted to make sure you do not run afoul of it because you are a diligent U.S. citizen wanting to stay on the right side of §1021, and you read the phrase ‘directly supported’. What does that mean to you?

Government: Again it has to be taken in the context of armed conflict informed by the laws of war.

Court: That’s fine. Tell me what that means?

The Government: I cannot offer a specific example. I don’t have a specific example.

After seeing the ridiculous responses the government had given her, and finding that even the government could not define those terms, Judge Katherine Forrest issued her ruling against the NDAA, stating: “This measure has a chilling impact on first amendment rights.”

She then granted her temporary injunction:

As set forth above, this Court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein.

This should be the end of it. This landmark case should be a victory for Americans, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The judge clearly states “the public’s constitutional rights” and “the public interest.” Hey, I’m a part of the public, so I’m protected now!

Not so fast. Our tyrannical government, in one sentence, has chosen to defy a ruling by a federal judge.

The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.

Just when you want to believe there are good people in the highest levels of our federal government, statements like this bring you back to reality. The government continued:

Although the Order fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, and the concluding paragraph of the Order is not, on its face, clear as to whom the injunction benefits, the government reads it in light of the well-established principle that courts ‘neither want nor need to provide relief to nonparties when a narrower remedy will fully protect the litigants’

Excuse me? Let’s very quickly compare Federal District Court Judge Katherine Forrest’s Order:

Accordingly, this Court finds that the public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein.

With the government’s response:

The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.

The Judge said her order was to protect the public interest. No informed human being could read it otherwise. Yet, according to the government, they can still detain you because you are not a named plaintiff. Our government is so entwined in a power grab, they will stop at nothing, even twisting court orders, to strip us of our Constitutional rights.