Put Controversial Law on Trial for Violating the Constitution


Target: John G. Roberts, Jr. Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Goal: Try the National Defense Authorization Act in court for trampling on our constitutional rights.

A lawsuit known as Hedges v. Obama was filed by a group including Christopher Hedges, formerly a reporter for the New York Times, in an attempt to repeal the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for being unconstitutional. The NDAA is controversial because its wording is so vague as to allow a wide range of interpretations, one such being that American citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial by the military on American soil, for suspicion of providing support to an enemy of the state. The Supreme Court has so far agreed with the findings of the district courts, which maintain the legality of the NDAA, on the basis that the bill does not allow the detention of American citizens. However, many judges, journalists, and activists have shown that the wording of the NDAA could allow for the detention of citizens, and the fact that this is not expressly prohibited in the bill makes it all the more possible.

The NDAA is an extension of the Patriot Act, which itself was the subject of intense scrutiny for its apparent violations of the Constitution. With a loose interpretation of these two laws, it is entirely possible for the government to detain citizens indefinitely, without trial, on the basis of suspected “support” of an enemy. “Support” is the actual word used in the bill, and can obviously be interpreted in a number of ways. “Enemy” is also loosely defined, especially considering that Wikileaks, the journalistic organization, is now considered an “enemy of the state.” It is for such reasons that Hedges v. Obama must be brought to the Supreme Court.

Many legal experts and political insiders agree that the NDAA tramples our Constitutional rights. Even if it does not explicitly state that our Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights are forfeit, the wording is loose enough to allow for such an interpretation, setting a dangerous precedent for upholding our rights. The government is supposed to work for the citizens, not persecute them. Sign the petition below to demand that the Supreme Court visit Hedges v. Obama.


Dear Mr. Roberts,

The lawsuit Hedges v. Obama has so far been dismissed by your court, as you have agreed with the findings of district courts. The issue at hand, the Constitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), is no less than the rejection of our Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. As citizens of the United States, we have the right not to be searched and seized or detained without a warrant. The wording of the NDAA makes it apparent that the military may detain citizens indefinitely, without trial, on the basis of suspicion alone. This is unacceptable in a democracy.

The Constitution of the United States is supposed to protect the citizens from power-mongering politicians, and so politicians have found a way to get around the Constitution. This is illegal under U.S. law, and it requires the attention of the Supreme Court. We urge you to hear the case of Hedges v. Obama, in order to properly try this law in court for its clear violations of the Constitution.


[Your Name Here]

Photo Credit: occupyreno_media via Flickr

Sign the Petition

  • Only your name will be displayed. By signing, you accept our terms and may receive updates on this and related causes.
FacebookCare2 NewsTwitterEmailShare

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Facebook Comments


51 Signatures

  • Alice Rim
  • Hermann Kastner
  • James Thrailkill
  • Terrie Phenicie
  • Terrie Phenicie
  • Mal Gaff
  • Holly Hall
  • Nancy Petersen
  • Melanie waleski
  • Ricki Newman
1 of 5123...5
Skip to toolbar