I explained exactly why it is unconstitutional, in FULL detail. Article 1, Section 7. If you take 2 minutes to check the facts, you'll find it is applicable. You didn't check. Who's gonna take 2 minutes out of their day to see that they're wrong?
I know, you refuse to accept the fact that supreme court justices would deliberately violate the law. Maybe you should take a look, then, at some other fairly recent rulings.
For example, the Chris Hedges vs. Obama NDAA lawsuit over whether it was ok for the military to snatch up american journalists and ordinary citizens and throw them in a guantanamo-like setting, indefinitely, without trlal or charge, no attorney, no notification of relatives, no 3 phone calls, nothing, gone, goodbye. US district judge Katherine Forrest found that section 1021 of the NDAA, which had been rushed into law amid secrecy and in haste on New Year's Eve 2011, was facially unconstitutional, and had a chilling effect on the 1st amendment. She permanently enjoined that section, because she repeatedly asked obamas attorneys to be more specific about the vagueness of "associated forces", and they would not.
It should be noted that when Katherine Forrest was nominated to the Southern District of New York, the ABA deemed her “unanimously well-qualified”. Don't kid yourself.
Her decision was the correct decision.
The injunction was appealed, 2 corrupt judges were appointed, and it ended up being overturned. So if you insist this "contradicts my political beliefs", then I suppose it does. I was taught in school a long time ago that the constitution was non-negotiable.
The link below is the MSM soft version of the story, downplaying the seriousness of it all:
Federal judge blocks National Defense Authorization Act provision - Los Angeles Times
This link below is the Naomi Wolf version telling it like it is. She was one of only 2 reporters that covered the case. The other reporter was from The Guardian:
The NDAA's section 1021 coup d'etat foiled | Naomi Wolf | Law | theguardian.com