[silverleaf]

Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," said Mr. Vieira. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama.

Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.' "

Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court."

So the lawyer who stated this doesn't know what he's talking about?

[Lurking Libertarian]

So the lawyer who stated this doesn't know what he's talking about?

I wouldn't say that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but Vieira is a bit of a gadfly in legal circles-- he routinely publishes pieces arguing that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and other non-mainstream legal theories.

In this case, he's wrong because there is a common-law rule called the "enrolled bill doctrine," which has been followed by the U.S. Supreme Court, that says that if a bill appears in the official journals of the House and Senate, it is conclusively presumed to be a valid law, and the courts will not consider any arguments that it was not properly enacted.