Obama demands court uphold his “right” to ignore Constitution

by Doug Book,  staff writer

Obama’s Department of Justice is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people.

On May 16th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), striking down those sections of the Act which provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority, government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.” (1)

And when asked by the judge what it meant to be an “associated force”, Obama’s lawyers “…claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of [the] term, or clear boundaries of the president’s power under [the] law. In short, it is the federal government’s scheme that the Act remain so vague that a corrupt and power-hungry Administration may imprison virtually anyone it considers a threat to its pursuit of absolute power.  (1)

On July 25th, Administration lawyers filed papers demanding Judge Forrest’s preliminary injunction NOT be made permanent. In the filing, Obama made it clear his Administration would ignore the court and its injunction regardless of what the judge may decide, claiming incorrectly that “…[the] injunction would have ‘nil’ effect, for the government would continue to possess the identical detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force…” Of course that is a lie, as the AUMF applies only to known members of al Qaeda or the Taliban. (2)

Most indicative of the Obama Administration’s contempt for Judge Forrest, the law and the American people was government attorney Benjamin Torrance’s claim that it was “the Obama Administration’s position” NDAA detention provisions do not apply to American citizens living in the US. Judge Forrest responded by quoting Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote in a 2010 case that the Supreme Court “…would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.” So much for Judge Forrest’s faith in the validity and value of Obama’s signing statement promise to not employ his Section 1021 authority to indefinitely detain the American public! (3)

Yet incredibly, when pressed on the issue, this Obama mouthpiece suggested to Forrest that concerns about the presidents detention powers were excessive as American citizens would, after all, have the ability to file  a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed! “How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance refused to answer, the Judge continued, “Several years, right”?

So not only did Obama’s attorney lie about his Marxist boss’s corrupt intentions, he actually claimed that the abuse of American citizens was somehow acceptable because those unconstitutionally imprisoned might ask that the charges against them be produced after ONLY a few years behind bars!

Judge Forrest will soon decide whether to make the injunction permanent. Every citizen must watch very carefully for that ruling as the “mainstream” media has ignored the story completely. We must all hope the Judge will not be intimidated by this corrupt Regime as so many of her colleagues have been before her.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

To reach your Congressional representative, use this link:


To read more use these links:

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution

(2) http://www.prlog.org/11933584-ndaa-2012-update-odrona-demands-dismissal-of-section-1021-injunction.html

(3) http://slumz.boxden.com/f605/aug-12-obama-admin-files-appeal-ndaa-injunction-1797960/

This day in history, August 15th

1971: Richard Nixon announced a 90 day freeze on wages, prices and rents in an attempt to bring inflation under control. He also removed the gold/silver backing from the US dollar making it the “floating” currency it is today.

Get your copy of Coach’s new book Crooks Thugs and bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party available at: http://crooksthugsandbigots.com 

In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. 

What have you done today to deserve to live in America? If you want suggestions of what to do to fight for our freedom see the “What each of us can do to defeat Obama” page at the top of the CiR homepage. 

Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.


Be Sociable, Share!

8 thoughts on “Obama demands court uphold his “right” to ignore Constitution”

  1. Though congress and the Supreme Court are BOUGHT by the Totalitarians, it’s nice to see that they haven’t been able to BUY all the lower courts (but it wouldn’t surprise me if this judge got “a call” late in the night to “remind” her that some people who go against the Elites “mysteriously” DIE).

    1. As a matter of fact, a number of plaintiffs and court watchers were surprised Judge Forrest did not make the injunction permanent right on the spot. Her decision shouldn’t be long in coming, but don’t look for CNN or CBS to cover it unless she somehow reverses herself and dismisses her own injunction. Remember, judges don’t issue injunctions unless they firmly believe that plaintiffs will win the underlying case, that being that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA is unconstitutional on its face. If she should reverse her decision it will mean that an African has invaded the fuel supply!

      1. Hey Puppy ! Great Article about the “nasty-one-occupying-the Oval-Office”; and an even more interesting follow-up comment.
        I continually wonder about the veracity and honor of ALL of these judges who have heard cases related to Obama, even the military courts.
        I, too am amazed that Judge Forrest did not issue a permanent injunction immediately…as she obviously “gets” the salient points of contention against such blatant overreach by Obama.
        It’s almost as if these judges were madly casting about looking for SOME reason to justify the demands and requirements of a president who is clearly insane, and who is already drunk with power. I also think these judges are looking for ANY excuse to be stopped from finding against a president by ANYONE legally authorized to voice an opinion on the case, including a higher court.
        I would have to say that today’s black-robed jurists are mostly devoid of courage and commitment to the precepts of the Constitution…
        It’s as if, according to the executive office, Congress, and the courts, the Constitution is like the truth….so damn “limiting”

        1. Thanks, Jo

          Obama’s people filed his motion to dismiss the injunction with the court and naturally, the plaintiffs filed their response. I don’t know what the “normal” practice is for judges who have granted injunctions, or even if there is one. But as I said above, judge do NOT impose injunctions unless they are confident the arguments of the plaintiffs will succeed in court. In this case the plaintiffs argued Obama had been given unconstitutional authority to revoke the 5th and 6th Amendment rights of those he might choose to imprison. The judge, of course, agreed with that premise. Naturally, the question is, did Hussein’s “fixers” get to the judge some way? After all, this decision looks like a no brainer!

  2. “Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”

    I find this interesting since Obama is a muslim himself.
    What he really wants is to have the power to arrest anyone
    who opposes him. Obama is evil incarnate.

  3. If Obama is re-elected, in four years he will have done so much more harm to America than he has in the previous four years, that we might as well call ourselves Cuba and re-name Obama. Castro!
    This anti-American President has an insatiable desire to take down America and become a Dictator! Already, his “true color” has begun to bleed through. It is as RED as Russia’s.

  4. Thanks for the post! It’s hard to keep up with everything happening with Hussein, especially since he seems to be on the edge of sanity. He is a very disturbed and disturbing individual and America will not survive four more years of him. It amazes me that more people don’t see this. Well thanks again, guess I’ll follow you from now on, if you don’t mind.

    1. Thanks Woody and welcome to Coach is Right. Frankly, I believe Obama would be far less dangerous if he WERE insane! Unfortunately, he and his Marxist handlers know exactly what they are doing and what they intend to accomplish–the destruction of the US economy and nation and the creation of a Marxist welfare state. Those who rebel will be labeled dangerous elements, radicals who must–for the greater good–be put down by force.
      You’re right…we cannot afford 4 more years of this Manchurian Candidate.


Comments are closed.