Ron Paul showed why he is the leading advocate of the Constitution in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. This week he introduced legislation to repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Signed into law without fanfare by President Obama, section 1021 of the new act authorizes the President to order the Armed forces to detain, “any person ‘who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,’ and anyone who commits a ‘belligerent act’ against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, ‘without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF].'”

An amendment that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. This provision of the new law came under fire from civil libertarians, including the ACLU. It flies in the face of the letter or spirit of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments to the Constitution. The worst part is the part about someone committing a “belligerent act”, but the new law does not define what that is. This gives the President sweeping powers to declare any act to be belligerent in order to justify holding any U.S. citizen unconstitutionally.

Detractors may claim that this is nothing but campaign gamesmanship, but Paul supporters know that when he introduces legislation, he means it. With Paul’s record-breaking popularity in this election cycle, this is likely to become a permanent part of both the Paul campaign and the ongoing campaign for liberty by Paul supporters.

The International Business Times quoted Paul as saying in remarks on the House floor this week, “What a way to usher in the new year. Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of presidential authority under the 2001 authority for the use of military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law.”

Also the IBT article quotes Paul saying, “Too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our constitution to support such outrageous legislation. One senator even said, about American citizens being picked up under this section of the NDAA: ‘When they say I want my lawyer, you tell them: Shut up, you don’t get a lawyer.'”

It is a sad thing that Paul has to introduce such legislation, since the offending section should never have been passed in the first place. The hawks have gone way overboard with this act, demonstrating that they have no conscience when it comes to the rights or liberties of the American people. If they get their way, they will effectively eliminate every freedom we have left, while simultaneously and pompously declaring that their actions are designed to defend our liberties, and not to take them away.

It remains to be seen how this will play out on the campaign trail, but I fully expect Paul to hammer this theme in the days and weeks ahead. The question remains: will the media report it, and will his opponents be forced to respond?