Mike Lee: Why would Lindsey Graham block a vote to protect Americans’ due process rights?

[libertybele]

Mike Lee: Why would Lindsey Graham block a vote to protect Americans’ due process rights?

On Thursday, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, called out fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., for blocking an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would protect Americans from detention without trial or charge.

Lee’s Due Process Guarantee Act was authored with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and has bipartisan support. His law would amend a provision that was added to the NDAA in 2012 that enabled the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on American soil.

“It simply says that if you are a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, you may not be indefinitely detained on U.S. soil without trial, without charge, without access to a jury or to counsel,” Lee explained on the floor of the United States Senate Wednesday. A super-majority of senators voted against a motion to table Lee’s amendment, agreeing that the amendment should receive a floor vote.......

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/mike-lee-calls-out-lindsey-graham-for-blocking-vote-to-protect-americans-from-indefinite-detention/

[endicom]

If the amendment is as Lee says then I don't know why Graham would oppose it.

For that matter, I don't know how it could have been removed from the original bill.

[WingNot]

If the amendment is as Lee says then I don't know why Graham would oppose it.

For that matter, I don't know how it could have been removed from the original bill.

Probably because there is an existing law on the books.

[Sanguine]

Probably because there is an existing law on the books.

So, why was he for it a few years ago?

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm confused.  Why would such an amendment even be necessary?  The practice of holding Americans indefinitely without charge is already against the Bill of Rights.

[WingNot]

So, why was he for it a few years ago?

Because he is a dumbass?

[Sanguine]

I'm confused.  Why would such an amendment even be necessary?  The practice of holding Americans indefinitely without charge is already against the Bill of Rights.

I understand Lee's argument (and, until recently, Graham's) is that this is happening and it is so important that a law must be passed to reestablish what is in the Constitution and is being ignored or has been distorted by court rulings.

[Cyber Liberty]

I understand Lee's argument (and, until recently, Graham's) is that this is happening and it is so important that a law must be passed to reestablish what is in the Constitution and is being ignored or has been distorted by court rulings.

You make a good point.  I wonder if a Federal Case is ever made, if such a Statue passes, and how many SCOTUS justices would find against a law that reaffirms the Bill of Rights?  Which ones?