Police State USA:

How the NDAA & Illegal Gun Laws Paved the Way For Chicago’s
“War Zone”

By Eric Anthony Crew

AP Authors Note: Having lived in Chicago for 3 out of the last 5 years I have to add that none of this is particularly new, just alarming in its numbers. Yet as many in the city would point out; this is nothing too surprising considering the numbers of impoverished that live in the ghettos of Chicago as well as the growing number of both the unemployed and the current rise in inflation will only make things worse before they get better.

There is also very real evidence to support the effects of summer on crime rates in Chicago, for some need only to walk outside to consider how the rise in temperature directly impacts and increases the rate of crime and subsequently murder rates in Chicago.

In this segment (a first of three) I hope to detail the history of how Chicago fell into this predicament and then how this is being used as the model for the rest of the United States and what would happen if gun control and Fear tactics are allowed to supersede the last of our constitutional rights.

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 4.46.04 PM

Welcome to the Beginning of the End of the United States and Say Hello to Police State USA.

Military Response to Chicago Shootings Sets New Precedent

Let us first remember, this is the model for what happens when you let the government strip you of your right to bare arms (aka the 2nd Amendment) was put into place to protect the people from a potentially tyrannical government first and foremost, but also from the possible violence of others. Without this Constitutional right in place, those that obtain their firearms illegally (which as the numbers below will show has only increased since firearm prohibition) have a severe and extreme advantage over citizens that cannot protect themselves.

In Chicago the record shows the desire to bare arms was increased by the government’s prohibition which in turn created the “need” for the black market, as it manifested due to supply and demand as it has with any other society in history under these circumstances. If you follow history it tends to repeat itself in this regard and unfortunately always gets worse; for then the government steps in and makes this a military issue.

Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has called on the assistance of the United States military to help patrol the blood-soaked streets of Chicago. The unprecedented move is one step away from declaring total martial law in the nation’s third most populous city.

This is bad, since Obama declared the United States to be a “battlefield” as of signing the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) on January 1, 2012 he now has the ability to place standing armies on American soil as well as the authority to indefinitely detain any American citizen without due process. The result could very well be any American voicing opinions to be labeled dissidents and considered Enemies of the State.

During 4th of July weekend, 82 people were shot in an 84 hour period, with a total of 14 succumbing to their injuries. Though the number of murders has fallen drastically since the 1990′s, the violence in Chicago seems to be increasing dramatically.

“It’s groundhog day here in Chicago again,” Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said this morning, in a statement that touched on the violent weekend. “The results were a lot of shootings and a lot of murders unfortunately,” he said. “Yesterday was the day that really blew it up for us in our strategy.”

With their failing strategies to protect the public, city officials will now go in a different direction and call upon the services of the National Guard. The U.S. military will act as a liaison for the Chicago Police Department and will not be given free rein to enforce the law, at least at this moment. The city, which has been given the nickname “Chiraq” because of it’s violent present, will now see increased police presence and armed guards in dangerous neighborhoods.”

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 2.15.39 PM

Do Gun Laws Work? Crunch the numbers yourself. “Chicago Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy announced Chicago Police have seized more than 3,390 firearms to date in 2014.”

The disconcerting number of guns seized and the even higher average number of gun related violence in Chicago can now be shown to be a  result of the ineffectual prohibition along with the increasing number of impoverished and unemployed.

We should ask ourselves then, why is this city being cited as the example for why more strict gun laws to be put in place?

Let us continue this examination next by listing the demonstrably Unconstitutional laws and acts the Obama Administration has participated in since taking office in 2008. For a reference to each act, please click on the underlined words (to follow tab indexed link) to obtain the information needed to make an even judgement for yourself on the path we have allowed our country to walk as well what that will ultimately mean for our future and our children’s future in America.


  1. Made Illegal Recess appointments – Article II Sec. 2 (the recess can only be a maximum 3 day recess as prescribed under Article 1 Sec. 5).
  2. Declared War on Libya without Congressional approval and the Federal Law called the “War Powers Act” clearly is a federal law intended to check the president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress – Article I Sec. 8.
  3. Overthrew State governments with Stimulus Package – 1607 (b): “If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.”
  4. GM bailout – only Congress has any authority with money.
  5. ACA or “Obama-Care” – ( 1.) The ACA could not pass “original intent” test of the Constitution interprets the original meaning of the Constitution within the context of the foundational of principles of law, Article 1 Sec. 7 states “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,”_ which did not happen.
  6. Matheson affair Bribery with judge appointments – Article II Sec. 4 states he is worthy of impeachment.
  7. Fast and Furious illegal gun running.
  8. Bringing a lawsuit against Arizona through the United Nations.
  9. Holding an office in the UN at that same time he is President (Section 9 of the Constitution states: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State).
  10. Leaks to Hollywood of vital information regarding raid on bin Laden (as well as killing bin Laden without conviction).
  11. Campaigning from the White House is illegal.
  12. Accepting foreign donations for campaign is also illegal.
  13. The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, for suspected terrorism charges without trial, judgement, or official charges (setting a new precedence that killing American citizens without adhering to the laws of the Constitution was acceptable, and more thus more likely in the future i.e. Boston Bombers).
  14. Voting in favor of NAFTA (after campaigning in 2008 to farmers and blue-collars stating that he would abolish it upon presidency).
  15. Voting to extend the treasonous Patriot Act after making campaign promises to end the Patriot Act in 2008 (and also for voting in the little known Patriot Act II which is purported to be “5-10 times worse than the Patriot Act”).
  16. Unauthorized Drone Killings & claims that the NDAA and similar provisions provide the executive branch with the right to bomb American citizens on American soil with unmanned drones (under “extreme” yet unspecified circumstances).
  17. Launched Operation Odyssey Dawn against Libya on March 19, 2011 (unauthorized war on Libya) without congressional approval and against the advice of his legal team.
  18. Signing and voting into law the National Defense Authorization Act.
  19. Countless acts of monitoring American citizens without reason or warrant; thus violating our right to privacy.

While the U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights does however, reflect the concern of James Madison and other framers of the Constitution for protecting “specific aspects of privacy”; such as the privacy of belief which protected by the 1st Amendment, the privacy of the Home against demands that it be used to house soldiers and is protected by the 3rd Amendment, the privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches is protected by the 4th Amendment (this is the one that applies to the Obama administration and the NSA’s recent actions). As well as the 5th Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.

 The National Defense Authorization Act (or NDAA)

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 – S 1867 — crafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) would declare the entire United States of America as a military battlefield, where individuals — American citizens and non-citizens alike — are subject to arrest and indefinite detention by the President without the right to step into a courtroom.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano said recently on his show Freedom Watch, “While you were shopping and dining over Thanksgiving, and maybe watching some football games, Big Government Republicans and Democrats were busy shredding the last vestiges of the Constitution … they’re talking about inserting the Army into domestic law enforcement.” Napolitano then quoted Republican Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) as saying “The homeland is part of the battlefield and people can be held without trial whether an American citizen or not.”



Read the President’s own words below about his “serious reservations” about his signing this into law, but first listen to Rand Paul explain to the public why the NDAA, drone attacks, the removal of due process and the president’s decision to kill an American with an accusation rather than a trial has lead America down the path to tyranny.

This is a very serious tipping point for the United States and an integral time in that we can still act on the laws that are still in place (for the time being) yet as we have seen from the above; our rights are being taken down one by one, like a set of dominoes.

The NDAA can now be seen to be a pretext for the militarization of the homeland and the government’s response to these shootings can be seen as a move to set the bar for whatever is to come. Stay tuned to Aquarian Philosophy for next article in this series,”Police State USA: False Flag Operations – The Boston Bombers, Recent Shootings & Lie of “The Lone Gunman”.

–  Written by Eric Anthony Crew

FREE EBOOKS – “The Secret Destiny of America” by 33 degree mason Manly P. Hall, “The Grand Chessboard” by internationalist Zbinew Brzezinski, & “The Advancement of Learning and the New Atlantis” by Sir Francis Beacon _ check out the latest AP 4Shared books available; each of which have amazing insights into what is happening today and all were written long ago by authorities in their respective fields.





Codified in the Bill of Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

The United States Constitution says in the second clause of Section 9 of Article I:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Earlier this year the House voted on a similar bill: HR 1540,where only 6 Republicans — Amash, Campbell, Chaffetz, Duncan (TN), McClintock, and Paul — voted it down.

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) wrote today on his facebook page that S. 1867 is “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” Moreover, Amash maintains that the the bill capitalizes on misleading semantics; regarding section 1032 , he says “‘The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.’ This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.”

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has opposed this piece of legislation as it stands and has proposed amendments — amendments 1062 and 1064– to strike-down verbiage that provides government power against US citizens.

Senator Paul warned on the Senate floor earlier today: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won … detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.”

Update 11/30: The Senate rejected Rand Paul’s amendment 1064 to modify S. 1867 on November 29; Mark Udall’s amendment 1107 was also rejected. Amendment 1064 received 30 ayes and 67 nays; the only GOP support came from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME]. Amendment 1107 received 37 ayes and 61 nays, where on two Republicans voted in favor — Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Rand Paul (Read more here).


Important Articles That Deserve Public Discussion

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 4.41.47 PM

He justifies the signing of the NDAA as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a counter-terrorism agenda. But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can –under the provisions of the NDAA– be labelled a “suspected terrorist” and arrested under military detention.

“Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

Obama is a lawyer (a graduate from Harvard Law School). He knows fair well that his signing statement –which parrots his commitment to democracy– is purely cosmetic. It has no force of law.

The signing statement does not in any way invalidate or modify the actual signing by President Obama of NDAA (H.R. 1540) into law.

“Democratic Dictatorship” in America

The “National Defense Authorization Act ” (H.R. 1540) repeals the US Constitution. The passage of NDAA is intimately related to Washington’s global military agenda. The military pursuit of Worldwide hegemony also requires the “Militarization of the Homeland”, namely the demise of the American Republic.

In substance, the signing statement is intended to mislead Americans and provide a “democratic face” to the President as well as to the unfolding post-911 Military Police State apparatus.

The Lessons of History

This New Year’s Eve December 31, 2011 signing of the NDAA will indelibly go down as a landmark in American history.

If we are to put this in a comparative historical context, the relevant provisions of the NDAA HR 1540 are, in many regards, comparable to those contained in the “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State”, commonly known as the “Reichstag Fire Decree” (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) enacted in Germany under the Weimar Republic on 27 February 1933 by President (Field Marshal) Paul von Hindenburg.

Implemented in the immediate wake of the Reichstag Firefalse flag attack (which served as a pretext _ kind of like 911), this February 1933 decree was used to repeal civil liberties including the right of Habeas Corpus.

Article of the February 1933 decree suspended civil liberties under the pretext of protecting democracy: “Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of association and assembly, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations, as well as restrictions on property rights are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.” (Art. 1, emphasis added)

Democracy was nullified in Germany through the signing of a presidential decree. The Reichstag Fire decree was followed in March 1933 by “The Enabling Act”which allowed (or enabled) the Nazi government of Chancellor Adolf Hitler to invoke de facto dictatorial powers. These two decrees enabled the Nazi regime to introduce legislation which was in overt contradiction with the 1919 Weimar Constitution.

The following year, upon the death of president Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler “declared the office of President vacant” and took over as Fuerer, the combined function’s of Chancellor and Head of State.

The signing of NDAA (HR 1540) into law is tantamount to the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Inauguration in 2012 of Police State USA.

Screen Shot 2014-07-12 at 4.45.01 PM



Unconstitutional Acts of the President

While President Bush Jr. was in office I was aware of many unconstitutional things that his administration was involved in. Obama isn’t any better. If anything this administration is worse because we have been primed for our government to do anything without regard for laws or rules. A few come to mind immediately.

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was/is being implemented in a hodgepodge fashion. One rule, set to begin enforcement in 2014, was that employers with more than 50 full-time employees had to provide qualifying health insurance to their employees or pay a fine. The presidential administration delayed enforcement of that rule by one year. That might not seem like much, but that was one of 27 tweaksmade to the ACA. These were made by the executive branch alone, without legislative authority. This is not permissible. The role of the executive is to carry out faithfully the laws passed by the legislative branch. While the executive is granted some leeway in the manner of execution, the execution itself is not to be dispensed with. The president was announcing decisions to ignore the laws or change the way the laws were executed for political expediency.

In January, 2012, the President made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. The problem here is that they were “recess appointments” made while Congress was not in recess. Congress has always been able to make its own determinations about when it is and is not in recess, and at the time it was holding sessions every three days for the express purpose of preventing these recess appointments. Recess appointments were, traditionally, an allowance made for when Congress had to take long recesses due to the time it took to travel. When a vacancy occurred during a recess and a president did not have an opportunity to consult Congress, the president was permitted to make a recess appointment. In recent years it has not been as strict and presidents have made recess appointments for vacancies that occurred while Congress was in session. Forbes has a good analysis of the different arguments used to support the recess appointments and why each are inexcusable as applied. Obama suggested that the period between the every-third-day session was a mini-recess and made the appointments there, something the Supreme Court justices also seemed to find would destroy the recess appointments clause. NLRB v. Canning, a SCOTUS case heard this term but not yet decided, will decide the validity of the recess appointments. The appointments again demonstrate the administration’s willingness to dispense with constitutionality to further political expediency.

Finally, there’s the recent case of the Bergdahl prisoner swap. Sgt. Bergdahl has been held by the Taliban for a few years now. The Taliban agreed to a prisoner exchange – Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban members held at Guantanamo Bay. In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, Congress must have 30 days prior notice of any prisoner transfer to another nation (section 1033(a)(1)). While the President argued that this was an unconstitutional limit on executive power and had made a signing statement to that effect, he had not let Congress know in advance at all. The President “putting Congress on notice” that he intended to act quickly if such a situation arose does not satisfy the law. Congress was very opposedto the trade, as the five Taliban men to be released were considered dangerous, the man to be returned was considered by many to be a deserter and traitor, and the “risks” that the President suggests the US would have been exposed to if the trade had not been completed in less than 30 days are not clear. Expediency, again, trumped the law for the President.

These are not everything, and this president is certainly not the only one to act unconstitutionally. But if we can’t trust our president to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, what good is the presidency? Impeachment seems the fitting solution here, as no other penalty would remove the unfaithful executive. Congress acts as if they are so offended by these indignities but I sadly doubt they would follow the proper course and impeach.




Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
December 31, 2011.

Read for yourself here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540