Did anyone notice how section this was very ambiguous in the admission yet very specific in the denials?
Is a law needed to "affirm the authority of the executive branch to act within our national interest"? I thought that was in his Constitutional job description.
"...provide the federal government with the tools that are needed to maintain our national security." - seems like our federal government is excessively equipped already.
Well in theory a law is not needed, but like I said before, the NDAA gets passed every year even though it often rehashes what was already said previous years and so shouldnt be necessary. Every year the NDAA often only reaffirms existing laws regarding national security. If this law only reiterates previous laws with regards to US citizens and legal aliens, then why is it needed ? i cant claim to know for sure, but Congress and state govts pass laws that only reaffirm previous laws all the time. So the point about how the military wouldnt be patrolling the streets due to NDAA 2012 still stands, unless it can be concretely disproven.