How is your response from the Pres? I wrote personally to the President a month ago about

[The Wielding Truth]

an explanation about NDAA and the unlawful and unconstitutional indefinite detention of US citizens the bill would allow. I haven't heard from anyone yet. Is that normal?

[zipplewrath]

1. Yes

However, you'll probably be getting a fund raising letter soon.

[The Wielding Truth]

8. Hey. I'm an Obama supporter. I get them. It's part of the messed up system. Obama has to do it, too.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, pretty much normal.

You should receive some sort of answer at some point, though. Getting a prompt response from the White House is a challenge. They get bags and bags full of mail, and more emails than you can imagine. Normally, you will get some sort of response, but it's not guaranteed. It's very, very rare to get a response from the President himself. To get one of those, your letter has to be unusual and very well-written. A few letters are passed on to the President, but most are responded to with a form letter. Others get a reply from a staffer.

How did you send your message?

[The Wielding Truth]

5. Thanks. I will be more patient. I used http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact. I went to

(Write the President).

[snooper2]

3. He usually only responds to my texts after his girls go down for the night...

He's quick too, like 5 texts back for every one I send LOL

[The Wielding Truth]

6. That's amazing. I don't have text.

[JoePhilly]

4. Here is his official response ...

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

Anything he would say to you in a letter, should also appear here.

[The Wielding Truth]

7. Thank you. This is very helpful.

[treestar]

10. Thank you!

If considering both sides is permissible on DU:

"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."

[s-cubed]

9. I wrote a hand written snail mail

and go back a nice form letter on WH stationary with at least a robo-signature. It took awhile though.

[treestar]

11. Is it normal to believe you're going to get a personal response?

[The Wielding Truth]

13. I didn't expect that. I am expecting a response from someone in the administration sometime.

I was asking if it was a quick answer or did I have to wait a long time.

[spanone]

12. i'd drive there and knock on his door.

[The Wielding Truth]

14. Have you tried? I wish you luck. Maybe when he is campaigning we could ask our questions in person.

[T S Justly]

15. Have you tried sending it c/o Wall Street or the Pentagon?

And cutting out the middle-man?