Via: Diana Nottingham In a staggering announcement an Associated Press report declared: â€œPresident Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.â€
Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well-connected journalist and political activist characterized the courtâ€™s assessment as â€œprobably the greatest indictment ever seen on a standing president throughout history.â€ White House press secretary Jay Carney reacted strongly against the charges declaring, â€œwe believe that the presidentâ€™s recess appointments are constitutionally sound.â€ However, the federal court seems to disagree having put in place â€ a list of charges presented as conclusionsâ€ according to Larouche.
Looks like some charges are actually being brought on this traitor. Lets hope they are totally sought out and completed to get this traitor out of office. The scary part is it wont mean we will get anybody any better.Â The NWO can still continue forward if we do not keep alert to what is going on in our country. A new President doesnt mean we will be out of the woods.
" Lyndon LaroucheÂ has characterized the events as probably the worst violation by any sitting president trying to use a â€œprocedural loophole.â€ Jubilant Republicans are already looking to set in motion impeachment proceedings. Larouche, who studied the court indictments, believes Obamaâ€™s offenses are â€œfar graverâ€ than those that led to the impeachment and removal from office of disgraced Republican president, Richard Nixon, after the Watergate scandal. "
Arizona, Indiana and Montana strike victories for 'anti-NDAA' legislation
The Washington anti-NDAA bill, H.B. 1581, at the soonest, will be able to be voted on by the committee in January 2014. Despite being put on hold, it has not died, and supporters still have hope for its eventual success.
The battle against the 2012 NDAA looms at the national level as well, as the Hedges vs. Obama case continues its lengthy progress. Plaintiffs include writer and former New York Times journalistChris Hedges and the anarchist political activist Noam Chomsky.
The lawsuit against the Obama Administration was first filed on Jan. 13, 2012 in response to the signing of the 2012 version of the National Defense Authorization Act on Dec. 31, 2011 by Pres. Obama.
While the NDAA is a perennial piece of legislation that appropriates funds for the military, the 2012 version,Â through ambiguity, supposedly includes U.S. citizens as potential "covered persons" who can be detained by the military without formal charges or a trial.
Hedge's concern, along with the co-plaintiffs and his lawyers, is that journalists covering stories related to terrorist groups in a way that the Obama Administration deems supportive or sympathetic could lead to a journalist's detainment under the 2012 NDAA.
In aÂ recent interview with Washington Times Communities writer Kevin Kelley, Hedges said the following:
I had spent a lot of time [as a New York Times journalist] with individuals and groups on [the list of terrorist groups included in the 2012 NDAA], and so it gave me a standing in court that very few plaintiffs would have had.
I [and my lawyers] all understood that this was a monumental step to not only empower the military to arrest American citizens, but strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in the language of section 1021 â€œuntil the end of hostilities," which in the age of permanent war is probably a lifetime.
The latest action on the Hedges vs. Obama case came on Feb. 6 in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and featured oral arguments for both sides of the case.
Hedges said of the possibility of a ruling in his favor, â€œI think the assault on the basic constitutional rights of due process is so flagrant and so egregious that we actually have a fairly good chance of winning.â€