GOP proposes bill that would suspend ALL laws
by valabor
Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 22:54:48 PST

This is probably the wrong time of day to post something like this.  But it needs to get out there.  Please recommend this diary to keep it on the front page.

On January 26, 2005, Rep. Sensenbrenner introduced the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418).  In the name of homeland security, it includes a number of items changing immigration laws, use of drivers' licenses, etc.

But -- most overlooked -- is Section 102 of this bill.  It would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend any and all laws in order to ensure the "expeditious" construction of a set of barriers and roads south of San Diego, to keep illegal immigrants out.  It also would prohibit ANY judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to suspend any law. ON EDIT: While the law the bill references mentions barriers and roads "near San Diego," it does not appear to be (technically speaking) limited to that area -- but to any barriers or roads "in the vicinity of the United States border." (See comments below).

The text of Section 102 is below:

Diaries :: valabor's diary ::

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

What does this mean?  What laws might the Secretary of Homeland Security suspend?

The first obvious sets of laws that would come under attack would be environmental and labor laws.  On the environmental side, think "Endangered Species Act."  On the labor side, think "Davis-Bacon" prevailing wage laws and the right to organize and collectively bargain.  

Also think "whistleblower laws."  Homeland Security wouldn't want any pesky do-gooders blowing the whistle on corruption in contract awards.

But wait, would all of these suspensions only apply to the physical, on-location construction of the roads and barriers?

Nope!  There's no such limitation in the law.  You can follow this right to suspend the laws anywhere someone might be claiming legal rights and slowing down the process.  The manufacturers of equipment and materials would certainly fall under this provision, for example.  The government workers dealing with any aspect of this construction, in Washington or California or wherever would also fall under this provision.  A city council objecting to something about the project could fall under this provision.

It's an incredible usurpation of the rule of law.  A cabinet secretary is given the right to suspend any and all laws.  And guess what?  The courts are prohibited from reviewing his decision!  Perfect!  So the Secretary can abuse his "authority" all he wants.  No review.  No nothing.  Welcome to the Second Term.

Let me repeat the language:

"the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion"

Again:

"the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion"

Got it?

The bill may be going to the House floor next week. ON EDIT: Here's a link to the bill: HERE

Display:

GOP proposes bill that would suspend ALL laws | 205 comments (205 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
What is the bill #? H.R. what? (4.00 / 3)



Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 22:53:44 PST

HR 418 (none / 1)

The link in the diary is bad, but you can find the full text of the bill by going to Thomas and searching for either "H.R. 418" or "Real ID Act".

It's always the old who lead us to the war, always the young to fall -- Phil Ochs
by litho on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 04:58:51 PST
[ Parent ]

On the HOuse floor? (none / 1)

Does this bill not have to go through a Committee? Congressmen introduce all sorts of crazy shit that never gets out of committe - what makes you believe this will go to the House floor next week?

by geordie on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 06:01:18 PST
[ Parent ]

I wrote to my Congressman (4.00 / 2)

He's a crazy wingnut on taxes, social programs, and social issues (Bartlett) but occasionaly he has an environmental moment and he's okay on the protection of constitutional liberties so maybe he'll do something.

I also wrote to my Senators.

by Lavoisier1794 on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:39:39 PST
[ Parent ]

Ol' Crazy Eye. (none / 1)

Guy still scares me.

"In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -Albert Camus.
by BrianL on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 11:52:53 PST
[ Parent ]

We should all do that. (none / 1)

Write to your Congressmen and -women.  Contact them here.

"So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy." ~Roger Baldwin
by spyral on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 13:23:36 PST
[ Parent ]

Yes, as far as I know (none / 1)

It's been sent to 3 different committees right now.  I didn't find anything that said when any of them would act on it.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:42:59 PST
[ Parent ]

H.R. 418 (4.00 / 14)

Go to http://www.congress.gov and type in HR418 in the search box.

by valabor on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 22:56:02 PST

Thanks, I just found it lol. I'm looking at it now (none / 1)

n/t

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 22:56:58 PST
[ Parent ]

Here's the link (none / 1)

to the bill.

(none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to Kos we go, with a...
by doorguy on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:05:28 PST
[ Parent ]

Bad link (none / 1)

Those links are only temporary - I haven't found a way to get a persistent link for a bill on Thomas. (does anyone know?)

You have to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html and enter the bill number.

by MH in PA on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 04:38:42 PST
[ Parent ]

How about this (4.00 / 2)

link

by tommurphy on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 04:45:23 PST
[ Parent ]

How'd you do that? (none / 0)

I took your link and made myself a "quick search" (By bookmarking it with the keyword "thomas" and replacing the "H.R.418" part in the URL with %s. Now I type "thomas HR418" or "thomas SJ1" into my address bar and it searches for bills by number.)

So how did you get the search to come up with the "full query" URL--all I can get are temporary ons? Because I'd like to make another Thomas quick search for myself that does keyword(s) instead of bill number. I can't figure it out.

Teach me to fish, oh master.

Them smokestacks reaching like the arms of god / Into a beautiful sky of soot and clay -- Springsteen

by abw on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 13:58:55 PST
[ Parent ]

OK, here's how it's done: (none / 0)

  1. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/.

  2. Enter 418 in the search text box.

  3. Click the "Enter keywords" radio button.

  4. Click the "Search" button.

  5. Click the [H.R.418.IH] temporary link (yours will be different).

  6. Click on the "Link to the Bill Summary & Status file."

  7. Now, click on the Text of Legislation.

There is your (not so temporary) link. Any questions? By the way, nice Springsteen quote.

by tommurphy on Sun Feb 6th, 2005 at 15:37:48 PST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, sir (none / 0)

You are a credit to the internets--every last one of them.

Them smokestacks reaching like the arms of god / Into a beautiful sky of soot and clay -- Springsteen
by abw on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 10:21:44 PST
[ Parent ]

You're welcome! (none / 0)

I'm happy to help.

by tommurphy on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 13:06:17 PST
[ Parent ]

Suggest you update diary (4.00 / 3)

To add bill number near the top.

Kudos on bringing this item to light.

But, it is a major peeve of mine that allegedly professional news organizations almost always talk about bills in Congress without giving the actual bill number they are talking about. Sometimes they don't even give the title that's used in Thomas either. If there are similar bills pending it's a pain to find the one they are talking about. Makes it hard to follow up on the facts. Oh, wait a minute, maybe that's why they do it!! (and I thought they were being lazy or stupid...)

Anyway, I move that all diaries on dailyKos that refer to current bills, give the bill number prominently in the first few lines. Especially if it is something we should be taking action on.

by MH in PA on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 04:48:08 PST
[ Parent ]

You are right (4.00 / 4)

From what I can tell, the Secretary of Homeland Security can waive any law (presumably, even constitutionally protected laws), and not only does it prohibit the court from ruling on the legality of the secretary waiving those laws, but no one can sue the government over the side effects of the waiving of those laws.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:00:11 PST

Judicial Review (4.00 / 2)

I was just rereading the judicial review portion of the bill.

It says, "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law (statutory or nonstatutory)"

Uhh...What would be nonstatutory?  The Constitution?

by valabor on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:01:08 PST

That or case law I would assume n/t (none / 1)



Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:01:39 PST
[ Parent ]

FYI (4.00 / 6)

The ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT
RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996 can be found here:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/text/104208.txt

Section 102 contains the reference to the barriers and roads south of San Diego:

SEC. 102. <<NOTE: 8 USC 1103 note.>> IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDER.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall take such actions
as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads
(including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in
the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in
areas of high illegal entry into the United States.
    (b) Construction of Fencing and Road Improvements in the Border Area
Near San Diego, California.--
            (1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
        Attorney General shall provide for the construction along the 14
        miles of the international land border of the United States,
        starting at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward, of second
        and third fences, in addition to the existing reinforced fence,
        and for roads between the fences.
            (2) Prompt acquisition of necessary easements.--The Attorney
        General, acting under the authority conferred in section 103(b)
        of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as inserted by
        subsection (d)), shall promptly acquire such easements as may be
        necessary to carry out this subsection and shall commence
        construction of fences immediately following such acquisition
        (or conclusion of portions thereof).

[[Page 110 STAT. 3009-555]]

            (3) Safety features.--The Attorney General, while
        constructing the additional fencing under this subsection, shall
        incorporate such safety features into the design of the fence
        system as are necessary to ensure the well-being of border
        patrol agents deployed within or in near proximity to the
        system.
            (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
        to be appropriated to carry out this subsection not to exceed
        $12,000,000. Amounts appropriated under this paragraph are
        authorized to remain available until expended.

    (c) Waiver.--The provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 are waived to the
extent the Attorney General determines necessary to ensure expeditious
construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

Note that this 1996 law also contains a law waiver provision for the Attorney General -- but only allows the waiver with respect to the  Endangered Species and Environmental Policy -- and contains no restrictions on judicial review of any such waiver.


by valabor on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:06:07 PST
[ Parent ]

There is a real danger in this (4.00 / 4)

As I recall, the Constitution gives Congress the power to place a statute beyond judicial review.

IMHO this enables the Homeland Security secretary the power to become dictator at will.

Anyone else think this is a really dumb idea?

by Jonathan on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:05:53 PST
[ Parent ]

There is a quesiton (4.00 / 2)

About whether Congress can tell the courts that they cant review the constitutionality of constitutional matters (i.e., can Congress tell the courts that they can't review laws restricing free speech?)

However, on other laws which aren't (supposedly) constitutionally guaranteed...yes they can prevent the court from looking into it.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:09:02 PST
[ Parent ]

Marbury v. Madison (none / 1)

which was decided so long ago (1802 or thereabouts) and held that the Supreme Court, not Congress, decides what is constitutional or not, is now to be dismantled by Bush II?

This is frightening stuff.

by MKS on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:25:30 PST
[ Parent ]

I'm afraid I don't recall that provision (none / 0)

Can you cite which clause you believe indicates this? I'm fairly sure that Article III provides for the Sc to rule on "on all cases arising under this Constitution, the law of the United States, and Treaties made."

I do not pray that God is on my side. I pray that I am on God's side. - Abraham Lincoln
by Desroko on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:12:08 PST
[ Parent ]

Article III (none / 1)

Section 2 Clause 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:19:16 PST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for pointing it out (none / 1)

I've yet to start law school, so correct me if wrong, but doesn't this just mean that the Court won't have original jurisdiction? From my reading, it appears that Congress is empowered to regulate whether the Court has original or appellate jurisdiction, but not whether it has any jurisdiction at all.

I do not pray that God is on my side. I pray that I am on God's side. - Abraham Lincoln
by Desroko on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:25:11 PST
[ Parent ]

Actually, If I remember (none / 0)

The court has ruled that Congress cannot determine what the court can and cannot have origional jurisdiction with.  The current interpretation is that this means that Congress can say what the court can and can not review.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:29:37 PST
[ Parent ]

Um, Marbury v Madison anyone? (4.00 / 3)

The Sup Ct gets to decide the constitutionality of the statute itself, if I understand it correctly.  IANAL etc.

by clyde on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:21:29 PST
[ Parent ]

Its unclear (none / 0)

I think there may be one decision where the court struck down a law where Congress said that the courts couldn't determine the constitutionality of something, and it is widely expected that if they had do, they'd say that Congress can't take that away.

However, there is a clear precidence supporting Congress telling the court that they can't review laws when the constitutionality of it isn't being questioned.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:23:23 PST
[ Parent ]

P.S. (none / 0)

Marbury declared that the Court had the right to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, but to my knoweldge didn't address the issue of whether Congress could take away that power.  The constitution suggests that they could theoretically do so, though it would defeat the purpose of Judicial Review if they could.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:25:35 PST
[ Parent ]

Marbury (none / 0)

According to my Judicial Politics professor, the Marbury case dealt with a law in which Congress redefined the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court overturned that law, insisting Congress could not do that, at least not in the way they had.

It's been a few years since I took that course, so someone correct me if I have it wrong.

by foxfire burns on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 14:54:43 PST
[ Parent ]

it would appear that there is an out (none / 0)

The clause allowing Congress to block judicial review has an exception: if a state is a party to the suit, it goes to the Supreme Court.  Maybe a state could sue Congress for trying to subvert the constitution, if they tried to use the clause to pass clearly unconstitutional legislation.


by Joe Buck on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:27:34 PST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure (none / 0)

A state can sue the Federal Government, though if they could, that would about be the only way I would get around that clause.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:29:38 PST
[ Parent ]

In the end, though... (none / 0)

The law clearly gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the right to waive all statutes -- so all our hard-won protections like the right to organize, workplace safety, whistleblowing rights, even most forms of anti-discrimination laws -- would be thrown out and the Constitution wouldn't be touched...

by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:32:00 PST
[ Parent ]

That is the main danger (none / 0)

The ability to basically be like "you have to work for $1 an hour 100 hours a week" and it would be "legal" since the Secretary could suspend those laws.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:33:37 PST
[ Parent ]

Tell the conservatives! (none / 1)

Dont conservatives care about their civil liberties?

http://www.freerepublic.com/ thats their daily kos. Post there and tell the conservatives whats going on.

Learn how to take back the issue of national security. Progressives are stronger on security.

by Lucian on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 01:55:44 PST
[ Parent ]

Tell the freepers (none / 0)

it would include overriding the right to keep and bear arms in all forms.

Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principle of evil.
by badger on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 11:08:51 PST
[ Parent ]

Does that include (none / 1)

Search and Seizure, Right to an Attorney, Speed Trial and all that?

Could be people are taking the Pentagon's dire predictions of the consequences of global warning (The borders of the US... patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving... people desperate to find a new home) seriously and assume there will be - in the near future - the need to build walls and barriers along our borders to the south hastely.

Perhaps this is a glimpse into our future?

by Pescadero Bill on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 10:15:41 PST
[ Parent ]

They can and do. (4.00 / 2)

Maryland v United States
State of California v United States
Montana v United States

"Political skill in the absence of statesmanship is the first act of a tragedy" - Garrison Keillor
by sfidler on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:56:11 PST
[ Parent ]

Alrighty then (none / 0)

I think there is some action dealing with states that isn't allowed, but I couldn't remember.

So, California could sue the US, but it would also have to have standing.

I suppose that if California had a minimum wage law, and the Secretary tried to suspend both the US and California wage laws, california could sue.  That is one possible avenue.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:57:33 PST
[ Parent ]

I have very little knowledge about things (none / 0)

of the legal persuasion, but knowing the supreme court that we have and not knowing the one that we might have. . .what would make them want to act on this if they could?

If not now. . .When?
by shirlstars on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 11:38:25 PST
[ Parent ]

Respect for the rule of law? (none / 1)

Don't laugh.  I have rarely agreed with Scalia or Rehnquist on anything signficant, but I know that both of these justices have a deep and unwavering respect for (their interpretation of) the Constitution. I think it's likely (though I'm not going to say certain) that they wouldn't hesitate to smack Congress down if it came to that.

Notice I didn't mention Clarence Thomas.  Still, that leaves 8 out of 9 justices that we can reasonably hope will rule the right way.  (Or maybe 7 out of 9, depending on who replaces Rehnquist.)


A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. (Emerson)

by Compassionate Conservationist on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 15:11:14 PST
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't... (none / 0)

the Dec of DHS be considered a public minister?

by kredwyn on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 13:08:06 PST
[ Parent ]

You bolded the wrong parts (none / 0)

The key is APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  In other words, Congress has NO power to deprive a trial court of trial-level jurisdiction.  This is the part the Republicans are ignoring, ultimately to their regret when it gets reviewed.  One thing the sentencing guidelines cases showed us is that Court, no matter how conservative, protect their own powers.

The limitation of governmental power means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations.- Theodore Roosevelt
by dhonig on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:10:20 PST
[ Parent ]

Maybe this is why they want a lawyer (4.00 / 2)

as DHS instead of someone who knows about security.

A moment of resistance; a lifetime of capitulation.
by lapin on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:16:04 PST
[ Parent ]

Nonstatutory (none / 0)

would relate to rules and order from other agencies which have the force of law, including it own agencies previous rulings and decisions. This law is defacto unconstitutional, since the S.C.U.S has jurisdiction over all Constitutional matters, and you simply can not waive that level of constitutional review.

Note to GWB, numbers don't lie, unless you lie about the numbers.
by Ralfast on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 05:44:46 PST
[ Parent ]

would be... (none / 0)

A non-statutory law would be court decisions as well as those promulgated by an agency through either the rulemaking process or the adjudication process.  Might also include executive orders.

Basically, it would be anything government does or says that has precedential effect, that isn't a statute.

by Nathan in MN on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:05:12 PST
[ Parent ]

Correct (none / 0)

although decisions made though the adjudication process by themselves only apply to the parties involved in the process, but they do carry the force of precedent (as far as that agency is concerned) and can be elvated to a formal rule by the agency.

Note to GWB, numbers don't lie, unless you lie about the numbers.
by Ralfast on Sun Feb 6th, 2005 at 19:52:53 PST
[ Parent ]

Mark Schmitt on "Notwithstanding any..." (4.00 / 5)

From a piece at The Decembrist last November called Reading Legislation (emphasis added to attract your attention):

For the most part, any legislative language, whether a bill or an amendment, is not written in its final form by staffers to members or committees, but by the legislative counsel for the House and Senate. These are extremely dedicated and unbelievably hard-working lawyers, who, especially in the crunch time at the end of a congressional session do amazing work in turning half-baked ideas into something that sounds legal and resolves any contradictions with existing law. As a staffer, if you take a description to legislative counsel, and what they send back is language that reads, "notwithstanding any other provision of law..." and then repeats whatever you gave them, it means that they regard whatever you're trying to do as vaguely ridiculous or illegal and not worth wasting their time to look up the appropriate legal references.

Just for chuckles, check this out. Further up in the piece--written in the wake of Istook's insane "I can read your tax return" legislation--Mark writes (same emphasis rules):

[I]t's pretty unusual for a devious provision to be as obvious as "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the chairman of the committee and his staff shall be able to read anyone's tax return." That's about as rare as finding a villain who strokes his long waxed mustache while emitting an evil cackle.

The once-"pretty unusual" wording grows in popularity as Republican extremists impatiently, recklessly grasp for more, more, MORE POWER!

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, we can do whateverthefuck we want, bitches.

Them smokestacks reaching like the arms of god / Into a beautiful sky of soot and clay -- Springsteen

by abw on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:00:14 PST
[ Parent ]

laugh to keep from crying (4.00 / 2)

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, we can do whateverthefuck we want, bitches.

ROTFLMAO!

Or is it too true to be funny?


Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:08:30 PST
[ Parent ]

Laugh until you cry (4.00 / 3)

Then cry until you can laugh again? Or something like that. ROTFLMAO --> ROTFCMEO --> ROTFLMAO ... (crying my eyes out).

OT Aside
Diary by revtim yesterday on a whateverthefuck we want, bitches provision in the GA House. Basically, if the Speaker is worried he may lose a committee vote, he can dispatch at-large Republican committee members to tip any vote his way.

Having two parties was awfully confusing.

Them smokestacks reaching like the arms of god / Into a beautiful sky of soot and clay -- Springsteen

by abw on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:24:31 PST
[ Parent ]

Cry HAVOC! (none / 0)

A let slip the dogs of ideology....

Note to GWB, numbers don't lie, unless you lie about the numbers.
by Ralfast on Sun Feb 6th, 2005 at 19:54:52 PST
[ Parent ]

Jeez, it has 124 co-sponsors too (none / 0)

I dont know enough about the House to know if any of these are Democrats.  Interestingly enough, my Republican congressman hasn't co-sponsored it (yet).

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:07:21 PST

I scanned it (none / 0)

I didn't see any dems. but I could have missed something.

Frederick Clarkson
by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 01:26:57 PST
[ Parent ]

Lincoln Davis of TN (4.00 / 3)

is the only Democrat, I believe. Someone should call their Representative if (s)he is on the list of cosponsors and ask what's up with this. I'd do it but I'm in Iraq and that would probably be a bad use of morale phone time.

by Winter Patriot on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 01:53:32 PST
[ Parent ]

Do you have unlimited internet time? (none / 0)

I know my brother and dad and friends that are there seem to be constantly on the internet (at least once a day), so could you use something like Skype to call?

What is Conservatism and What is Wrong With It?
by sdlohrenz on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 02:33:33 PST
[ Parent ]

Plenty of internet time, but (none / 1)

I'm not allowed to download software. I do have a sat phone (for work only) and an Iraqi cell phone that I can use for 15 min/week for personal calls. But it never works. Thanks for the tip though. Wow, you've got a lot of people over here!

by Winter Patriot on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 02:54:02 PST
[ Parent ]

Hey WP (4.00 / 2)

Keep your head down!  Stay safe!

And, thank you for reading and being one of us.

Can I send you anything?  If you need ANYTHING, please email me: sharson at ureach dot com

The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

by TXsharon on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 06:05:03 PST
[ Parent ]

Yes, please (4.00 / 2)

stay safe.

Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell
by TracieLynn on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:40:52 PST
[ Parent ]

stay safe Winter Patriot (4.00 / 2)

I'm thinking of you...

by Tomato Observer on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:41:30 PST
[ Parent ]

Stay safe (none / 1)

Thanks for posting, WP.  My brother has been in Baghdad for a year - they're keeping him in Amman right now, out of harm's way, I assume - working on reconstruction contracts.

You're in my prayers.


by Cambridgemac on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 11:58:08 PST
[ Parent ]

Chiming in (4.00 / 2)

Same here, Winter.  Prayers going out to you. My son's best friend is a Marine corporal who just returned to Iraq, so I will be praying for a bunch of you.  Let us know what you all need.

By the way, are the sand fleas bad now? A girl my son works with returned from 'the sandbox' a few months ago, and she said she used to have nice legs but not anymore--had to use her knife to cut out the fleas.

by Margot on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:07:24 PST
[ Parent ]

thanks everybody (none / 0)

As far as the sand fleas, I've had some nibbles, but not too bad. There's some sort of ultrasonic dog collar thing that a lot of people swear by. Talk about war being dehumanizing...

by Winter Patriot on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 20:37:45 PST
[ Parent ]

Good to hear (none / 0)

Ultrasonic waves, hmm?  I'll have to remember that.  

Tomorrow we have Pastordan's 'services' and you are welcome to come join in, ask for prayer.


by Margot on Sun Feb 6th, 2005 at 01:26:52 PST
[ Parent ]

So is... (none / 0)

Rep. Collin C. Peterson, (D MN-7)

124 Republican signees
2 Democrat signees

Orwell is spinning in his grave

by tlh lib on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 15:01:53 PST
[ Parent ]

Contact Info for the 2 Democrat Co-Sponsors (none / 0)

collinpeterson.house.gov :
Rep. Collin C. Peterson     (D MN-7)

E-mail: http://collinpeterson.house.gov/email.html
Web Site: http://collinpeterson.house.gov/

Washington, DC
(202) 225-2165
(202) 225-1593 (fax)

Detroit Lakes
(218) 847-5056

Marshall
(507) 537-2299

Montevideo
(320) 269-8888

Red Lake Falls
(218) 253-4356

Redwood Falls
(507) 637-2270

Willmar
(320) 235-1061

Rep. Lincoln Davis :


Rep. Lincoln Davis (D TN-4)

Email Lincoln Davis

Office Locations            

Washington D.C. Office
Congressman Lincoln Davis
410 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202.225.6831
Fax: 202.226.5172      

Columbia Office
Congressman Lincoln Davis
1804 Carmack Blvd., Suite A
Columbia, TN 38401
Phone: 931.490.8699
Fax: 931.490.8675    

Rockwood Office
Congressman Lincoln Davis
1064 North Gateway Avenue
Rockwood, TN 37854
Phone: 865.354.3323
Fax: 865.354.3316
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 88, Rockwood, TN 37854

Jamestown Office
Congressman Lincoln Davis
629 North Main Street
Jamestown, TN 38556
Phone: 931.879.2361
Fax: 931.879.2389
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 964, Jamestown, TN 38556      

McMinnville Office
Congressman Lincoln Davis
477 North Chancery Street, Suite A-1
McMinnville, TN 37110
Phone: 931.473.7251
Fax: 931.473.7259



Orwell is spinning in his grave
by tlh lib on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 15:10:42 PST
[ Parent ]

My Rep, My Letter (4.00 / 2)

My Rep,Elton Gallegly is one of many co-sponsors, so this is what I told him.  With 125 co's that is half of the House 'Publicans.

I notice that you are a co-sponsor of HR 418, a bill which contains some provisions which upon examination seem both ill advised and objectionable.  Primary amongst these is section 102.c.1 "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."

I believe that American should maintain and support the rule of law and this provision destroys that with language with is far too general to be safely written into our system.  It is far too prone to abuse by anyone in the position of Secretary of Homeland Security as there is not written into any limit to its power within the context it is granted, even judicial review is waived in 102.c.2.

If you believe in the rule of law, then you should insist that this provision be removed or you should withdraw your co-sponsorship of the law and vote against it.

The only international crime is losing a war

by Luam on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 05:45:35 PST
[ Parent ]

Not only San Diego area (none / 0)

I can't find where the bill specifies road construction, barriers, etc., south of San Diego. I think the bill allows the secretary to suspend all laws to build a wall across the Mexican border and the Canadian border if he wants to, am I wrong?

Is this our version of the Israeli strategy?

(none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to Kos we go, with a...

by doorguy on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:07:51 PST

Okay, that was dumb. (none / 0)



(none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to Kos we go, with a...
by doorguy on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:09:04 PST
[ Parent ]

It makes reference to another law (none / 0)

It makes reference to the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996.  I posted the relevant provision of that law (already enacted back in 96) above in a comment entitled FYI.  See the big gray block post.

by valabor on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:09:44 PST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for that post (none / 0)

...saw it right after I (duh) posted mine. Makes the bill 10 percent less scary, like Mussolini instead of Hitler maybe?

(none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to Kos we go, with a...
by doorguy on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:12:00 PST
[ Parent ]

The law that it's amendming (none / 0)

may deal with a wall with mexico (i'll check into that now), but you're right, by scanning it, I didn't see anything in the bill itself limiting it to "south of San Diego"

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:10:51 PST
[ Parent ]

No, see here (none / 0)

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/text/104208.txt

That's the law that the bill references.

And see this part:

"(b) Construction of Fencing and Road Improvements in the Border Area
Near San Diego, California."

But maybe you're right -- because Section (a) of that law talks about "additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in
the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States."

In fact, I might edit my original post because of this, to eliminate the "south of SD" mention.

by valabor on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:13:44 PST
[ Parent ]

Could they perhaps (4.00 / 2)

also be concerned about making it harder to leave?  Such barriers can block in either direction.

by pundette on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:03:21 PST
[ Parent ]

This is dangerous (4.00 / 2)

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves at the GOP trying to get rid of checks and balances.

Newsie's Week in Reviewsies Feb 5, 2005 edition
by Newsie8200 on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:15:26 PST

Not Exactly (none / 0)

They're rolling their eyes at us.

We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"
by Gooserock on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:28:59 PST
[ Parent ]

They're not rolling, they're dust ... (4.00 / 4)

...and that's just how the alleged strict constructionists of the GOP want them. Can you imagine what Th. Jefferson would have to say to these guys?

by Meteor Blades on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:45:04 PST
[ Parent ]

I wonder... (none / 0)

can we go back to the time when we dueled to solve our differences?

:-)

Newsie's Week in Reviewsies Feb 5, 2005 edition

by Newsie8200 on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:56:08 PST
[ Parent ]

he'd probably say (none / 1)

"why are you wearing those funny clothes?"

"Will we be Coca-colonized?" - L'Humanite
by jokeysmurf on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 04:59:00 PST
[ Parent ]

Did you ever think (none / 0)

you'd be agreeing with Zell Miller?

As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed
by sidnora on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 05:00:01 PST
[ Parent ]

Zell Miller thinks we're there already- (none / 0)

and to quote my favorite movie, "What is it to be, the broadswords when I'm eighty-five?"

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." -Karl Marx
by Lainie on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 05:14:49 PST
[ Parent ]

not exactly (none / 0)

Jefferson and Hamilton are probably exchanging "I told you so"s and Washington is running around heaven asking, "OK, who hid my teeth? Come on guys, that's not funny!"

I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
by eugene on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:46:30 PST
[ Parent ]

I hate reading raw US Code (none / 0)

I'm trying to make heads or tails of this.  It doesn't look like it's amending the code itself, but notes as to how the law should be carried out.

Apparently the part it was amending is part of Act Sept. 30, 1996, P.L. 104-208, Div C, Title I, Subtitle A, ยง 102(a)-(c), 110 Stat. 3009-554

Whatever the hell that is.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:33:38 PST

Buddy - (none / 0)

I pasted that law above.  Go up and find the comment with the big gray block quote.  You'll find the 102(c) section that this new bill would replace.

by valabor on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:36:06 PST
[ Parent ]

Nevermind (none / 0)

It's referring to the law posted above...but why isn't it in the actual federal code, and only in the "notes" below it, i'm still trying to figure out.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:36:12 PST
[ Parent ]

"Notes" (none / 1)

The fact that this Public Law was enacted as "note" in the U.S. Code doesn't really matter.  It's really just a matter of where the U.S. Code assigners thought to put it.  They thought this new 1996 law was similar enough to another provision to not make it worthy of a new title number.  Instead, they just gave it the same title number as a title that already existed and called it "note."  It's still the law of the land.  The "note" notation doesn't change that.  See:  http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:vy70ZMQ-vosJ:lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/Jan01/0487.html+what +are+%22notes+in+the+u.s.+code%22&hl=en&start=1


by valabor on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:46:38 PST
[ Parent ]

Alright, got it. n/t (none / 0)



Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Feb 4th, 2005 at 23:47:49 PST
[ Parent ]

Law to put the Bible above the Supreme Court (none / 0)

Already sailing happily to approval in Congress...

I'm talking about the The 'Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'
Details here:

Guess we know what we will be called when Bushies get done with US:

Taliban R US

Sigh... Bush turned US into a banana republic with nukes

by lawnorder on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:05:18 PST

Except that (none / 1)

that bill is now dead since this is a new Congress.  Haven't seen anything similar introduced yet though I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:07:12 PST
[ Parent ]

ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL (none / 1)

"`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--"

this is fucked, from many legal perspectives. most importantly, court jurisdiction, especially Supreme Court jurisdiction, can only be changed by Congress. in the past, Congress has been extremely hesitant to restrict the SC jurisdiciton, and any new limitations, especially for this stupid shit, would result in a severe backlash from the Court. because of this, I HOPE THIS PASSES because it will make paranoid conservatives like Scalia even more sympathetic to anti-invasionist policies.

by Appstate on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:07:17 PST

Well, it would still technically (none / 0)

Be congress doing the regulating, but instead of Congress giving a specific item, they'd be essentially giving a blank check.

It would be interesting to see how the court took that though, as you said.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:09:40 PST
[ Parent ]

historically (none / 0)

the SC has usually avoided positions that would be so partisan as to provoke Congress to limit jurisdiction. however, Congress is quite aware of the ramifications of limiting jurisdiction. i would enjoy reading the opinion of the court if a suit regarding this case reaches the SC.... preview: count how many times Marbury v. Madison is referenced in the decision.

by Appstate on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:15:30 PST
[ Parent ]

Except that (none / 0)

The court has traditionally ruled that laws that dont deal with constitutional matters can be restricted, but that Congress can't prohibit the court from ruling on constitutional matters.

I think the blank check would be the main issue in this law.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:17:10 PST
[ Parent ]

ok then (none / 0)

constitutional issues i would argue include:
-various Article III violations
-14th Amendment violations
-5th Amendment due process violations
-fill-in-the-blank with however the law in actually IMPOSED and the subsequent violations (inevitably 1st Amendment questions)

even the most conservative SC court would immediately strike down this law, especially bc they are wise enough to understand that the GOP won't be in power forever. choose your constitutional question- there are plenty, and Congress would need brass balls to try and mess with jurisdiction.

by Appstate on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:37:06 PST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure what you'd argue (none / 0)

If they, for example, tried suspending due process (like, randomly arresting people) then you could do what you're doing.

However, if they say, suspended labor laws, how could you argue that constitutionally?

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:42:54 PST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but (none / 1)

Constitutional questions aside, the law clearly gives the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all statutes -- which wouldn't touch the Constitution.  So...

Goodbye environmental laws.

Goodbye workplace safety laws.

Goodbye wage and hour laws.

Goodbye labor rights laws.

Goodbye whistleblowing laws.

Goodbye contract bidding laws.

Goodbye discrimination laws.

And so forth...  Goodbye democracy.

by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:43:10 PST
[ Parent ]

you dont understand (4.00 / 4)

the act of "the Secretary of Homeland Security [waiving] all statutes" is, in itself, unconstitutional. not to mention delegation of essential duties issues, there are numerous BofR problems. add in habeus corpus problems, and a few others, and this would be a "tort reform" nightmare for the GOP. not to mention that the mere suggestion in a bill that "THIS SHIT CANNOT BE JUDICIALLY REVIEWED" can, inherently, be reviewed. if this is the GOP's solution to tort reform, to add "no judicial review" to upcoming bills, then they are more batshit crazy than i previously thought. please tell me how this law would not be on shaky legal grounds, at the least.

by Appstate on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:51:57 PST
[ Parent ]

Not necessarily (none / 1)

The law is whatever Congress wants it to be, unless it violates Constitutional rights.

One could thus argue that, its not "all" laws, but those which dont infringe constitutional rights.

The only possible arguement is one where you say that Congress can't delegate this right, and the court has gone both ways on that in the past.

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:54:16 PST
[ Parent ]

All the DHS Secretary (none / 1)

All the DHS Secretary has to do is avoid a constitutional question.

There are lots of actions by government officials that, by law, are not reviewable by the courts.

It would be improper for the DHS to waive a law out of the blue, of course.  But this wouldn't be out of the blue.  Here, Congress explicitly authorized DHS to waive laws.

Congress passed a law giving workers the right to organize in 1935, for instance.  Congress could repeal it.  And Congress could certainly pass exceptions to the law -- and this is one of them.

In fact, this bill creates an exception to ALL laws previously passed by Congress.  They are all effective unless the DHS decides they should be waived.  And that waiver is nonreviewable.

by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 00:57:24 PST
[ Parent ]

without rehashing legal arguments... (none / 0)

this law is bullshit. and we all know it. the sponsors of the bill most likely know it. it will not pass, and if it does, it will be overturned. so while i believe there are numerous grounds for appeal, all that really matters is that this bill won't see the light of day. like i said, even the most conservative SC would find a creative way (i.e. Griswold) to overturn. to quote the big lebowski, "this aggression will not stand, man."

by Appstate on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 01:03:04 PST
[ Parent ]

at best (none / 0)

At best, it's unconstitutional with respect to the DHS's ability to waive constitutional rights.  

But, as you must know, Congress can repeal any law it wants to repeal.  And this is a sort of limited repeal -- Congress would be saying:  all laws are repealed (waived) to the extent that the DHS deems it necessary that they be repealed (waived) for purposes of building these barriers and roads.

by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 01:10:14 PST
[ Parent ]

Congress can repeal... (none / 0)

...but can it give the authority to the Executive to waive?  Seems this is a much murkier area of con law.

Piss off Frank Luntz: don't use Republican issue frames like "Social Security crisis."
by DC Pol Sci on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:51:12 PST
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0)

considering the dilution of legislative authority that is the War Powers act and the iraq war resolution, I wouldn't expect the SC to stop it on those grounds...

by Politburo on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 22:27:10 PST
[ Parent ]

Judicial Review (4.00 / 2)

There is absolutely no question that Congress cannot abolish judicial review of constitutional matters.  This law would be struck down as applied in that instance; I wouldn't worry about any court saying, "Welp, I guess I can't enforce the 5th and 14th Amendments because Congress said so."

The harder, and very interesting, question is the extent to which Congress (a creature of Article I) can authorize an executive agency (a creature of Article II) to alter Congressional acts.  There would seem to be serious separation of powers problems with that.

I'm sure there is some case law on it, but I don't know what it is.

Fools on foolishness: Banality Fair

by Spiral Stairs on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 11:19:00 PST
[ Parent ]

How does this whole thread scan (none / 0)

If the President declares a National Security Emergency because of a Gulf of Tonkinoid Red Terrorist Alert.

A democracy that is fixed, is broken.
by Brother Artemis on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:06:04 PST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

The law states that it's only to be used to build barriers on the US border (though it doesn't specify specifically which)

Of course, any decision made is supposedly non-reviewable by the courts as well, so if they used the power for some other reason...unless the court strikes the non-review thing down...well...you get what I'm saying (I hope)

Phil Bredesen for President...no Kerry...no Gore...no ME...oh wait I'll only be old enough to run for Congress.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:09:53 PST
[ Parent ]

Ohhhh -- airports? (none / 1)

As noted above:
The law states that it's only to be used to build barriers on the US border (though it doesn't specify specifically which)

It just occurred to me... What about airports?

For customs purposes, all airports are "the US Border", if I'm not mistaken. Not that airports aren't like a time machine back to East Germany nowadays ANYWAY, ut still...

"... if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band..." -- Murray Rothbard

by bradspangler on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:27:50 PST
[ Parent ]

So even IF (none / 1)

So even if we somehow got this limited down to just "areas within 50 miles of the border" or something like that, that would STILL cover every major population center in the country -- being within a 50 mile radius of an airport in every case I can think of.

"... if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band..." -- Murray Rothbard
by bradspangler on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:32:46 PST
[ Parent ]

Coastlines/Ports (none / 1)

Of course, the legal border is out at sea, but you can't build a wall there.  With a small addendum to include "borders and nearest defensible landmasses thereto," this could be used to selectively shut down coastlines and ports, most of which, as you'll recall, lie in states that went against Dear Leader in November.

If used really deviously (as it surely will be if passed) this provision could allow the effective closure to trade of New York, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, etc., and the simultaneous creation in Houston, Galveston, Miami, Tampa Bay, Newport News, and San Diego of tax-free corporate playgrounds with no labor, safety, or environmental regulations.

Does anyone know