NDAA Terrorism Law Struck Down By Federal Judge in a Win For Freedom

Once again the judiciary is striking down legislation, but this time I doubt that anyone who isn’t employed by Homeland Security will object. This time, it’s what I perceive to be the most egregious failure of the Obama administration that has been struck down. The NDAA’s provision to hold anyone accused of terrorism indefinitely, without access to the courts.

U.S, District Judge Katherine Forrest said that even though the government had softened its stand toward those challenging the law, the “shifting view” couldn’t erase the threat of indefinite military detention. The federal judge said she saw legitimate fears in claims by journalists, scholars and political activists that they could face indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.

This is a classic example of the Judiciary doing its job as the third leg of the federal government platform. The legislature can write laws, the executive can propose laws and veto laws, but it cannot write them or edit them. The judiciary can, when asked, determine the constitutionality of laws, but in order to do so there must be a complainant. There is some truth that the Judiciary has the toughest job and the least power to perform it, but it has sufficient power to override the Legislative and the Executive branches and I for one am happy about that.

I don’t always agree with the decisions handed down from the bench. I would very much like to see Citizens United overturned as it has made the election process very much a matter of purchase instead of a matter of determining the proper leader of the country based on the issues. I highly disagree with the decision in Bush v. Gore because I feel the Supreme Court disenfranchised thousands of voters in Florida, but nonetheless, the power of the Judges cannot be questioned.

In this case I can completely agree with the decision. A very important piece of American Freedom has been restored from the jaws of totalitarianism. Unfortunately, this is an appellate court judge and not the Supreme Court. I would hope that whatever entity is defending the law will now merely stop and allow this travesty to fall. However, if they should decide to further pursue the implementation of this law, perhaps the Supreme Court will have the same good sense as Judge Forrest.