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, § 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 much about the Free-Trade Zones common in mainland China and other authoritarian states?

Oh, and is the Commerce Department perchance among the 150 programs that will be cut or scrapped altogether in the new, "responsible" budget?  Who needs Commerce when DHS has unlimited power?

Check out the top story today at Commerce.  It's interesting to note the touted advantages of cooperation between EPA and Commerce, agencies traditionally scorned by Republicans everywhere.  If the coast is considered a border area, the 1996 "Improvement of Barriers at Border" provision, quoted above, would detooth EPA entirely, at the discretion of the Attorney General.  This looks like another tangled chain of command, with DOJ and DHS BOTH having the power to waive important protections (and then point at each other as the responsible party, before receiving knighthoods in Dear Leader's Army of the Faithful).


by GRCambridge on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:15:38 PST
[ Parent ]

Again we are reminded (4.00 / 3)

democracy is a game with rules everyone has to agree to play by. If one side opts out of the rules, it is not as if the constitution, page by page, surrounds the house of a bully at night and carts him off to jail.

It is more like, if one side begins to cheat the rules, the other side takes their basketball and goes home. Home. In front of the fireside. Drinking brandy and wondering, "How can we make King George take us seriously?"

I recommend bringing back street theater and the Merry Pranksters. Wavy Gravy used to hand out red clown's noses at demonstations saying, "If they want to be filmed for international news, beating up a bunch of clowns:  We win!"

I put flowers in the rifle barrels of the National Guard Troops that Gov. Reagan called out for the People's Park Protest in Berkeley.  One protester had already been killed. At least half of the guard troops welcomed the tension relief. We lost the skirmish but we dedicated People's Park Annex, with Berkeley's blessing, just two weeks later.

Of course, if they do beat up the clowns...

A democracy that is fixed, is broken.

by Brother Artemis on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:33:08 PST
[ Parent ]

This proposed legislation has awful ... (none / 0)

...anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sections as well.

by Meteor Blades on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 01:01:28 PST

Getting away from the right margin... (none / 0)

On the constitutional matter.  Two things you must look at.

  1. It is saying that this provision of law can't be looked at.  I'm pretty certain this would be overturned if there is a constitutional matter at stake.

  2. If that happened, there would be the seperate issue of can Congress give a Secretary the right to suspend laws arbitrarily?  This is territory that, as far as I know, hasn't been covered b the Court before.

  3. If the secretary can do that, is anything he/she does reviewable?  Again, constitutional matters seem to be a yes...everything else probably not.


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 01:09:00 PST

Sensenbrenner is Fudging the Truth (4.00 / 4)

Surprise.

Check out this story on the introduction of the bill, quoting Sensenbrenner:  http://www.axcessnews.com/national_012705a.shtml

Third, he said his bill would waive federal environmental laws that have prevented the completion of the San Diego border security fence, which Congress authorized eight years ago. "Neither the public safety nor the environment are benefiting from the current stalemate," he said.

As we've just seen, this bill deals with a lot more than "environmental laws."

Incredible.

by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 01:15:24 PST

And there's this (4.00 / 2)

A press release from Republican Rep. Simpson (Idaho), stating that the law would:

Waive all federal laws necessary to ensure timely completion of a 14-mile border fence between the United States and Mexico, inland from the Pacific Ocean in San Diego. Construction was ordered by Congress in 1996, but remains entangled in environmental lawsuits over protection of such species as the Coastal California Gnatcatcher.

So therein you see the first basis for the "no judicial review" provision.  The 1996 law gave the Attorney General the right to waive the Endangered Species Act.  But there was no provision in the 1996 law forbidding judicial review of that decision.

Here's a Washington Times story (ugh, I know) on the matter from last February 2004:

 

A California state agency has rejected the Homeland Security Department's effort to fortify the U.S.-Mexico border to safeguard defense facilities from terrorists and ebb the flow of illegal aliens, saying it would harm endangered species.
    Congress mandated the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to build secondary and triple fences along the 14-mile stretch from the Otay Mesa Border to the Pacific Ocean, dubbed "Operation Gatekeeper."
    However, the California Coastal Commission concluded Wednesday that the last phase of the project "does not properly balance border patrol and resource-protection needs." The independent, quasi-judicial state agency voted unanimously against the project.
    The report said the "environmentally sensitive habitat" is home to three endangered birds: the least Bell's vireo, Southwestern willow flycatcher and coastal California gnatcatcher.
    "The operation might succeed, but the patient may die," commissioner John Woolley said.
    The CBP can ignore the commission's decision and move forward with the project, but the commission could block the project in federal court. The final decision could be made by President Bush, who has the power to trump a court ruling under federals laws that manage coastlines.
    Mike Nicley, chief patrol agent for the San Diego sector, said the project has had a "dramatic impact" blocking what was historically "easy access" for illegal aliens. Last year, 100,000 border crossers were stopped, compared with half a million in previous years.
    "Where we once got thousands a month is down to a trickle," Mr. Nicley said.
    Federal officials will first go back to the drawing board to address the commission's concerns and further mitigate any impact on the environment while still carrying out the Homeland Security Department's mission.

Again, however, this bill goes beyond dealing with the Endangered Species Act.  It allows DHS to suspend ANY law (statutory or nonstatutory).

by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 01:24:11 PST
[ Parent ]

Then why not just say... (none / 0)

"1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, the fence from blah blah blah will be built.

  1. This legislation operates as an express exception to any other legislation, and it is the express intent of Congress that any judge interpreting it immediately deny injunctive relief based on the provision of any other act of Congress.

  2. The exception to other legislation operates only in the case of building this fence."

Seems that would do the trick, no?  The only thing one would have to worry about would be Constitutional challenges, and ordinary law can't waive the Constitution in any case...I think court stripping goes too far, though.  Seems to me the only Constitutional objection would be that Congress is exceeding its Article I, Section 8 powers, which would be easily defeated by the fact that Congress has the power to make uniform laws for immigration...

Piss off Frank Luntz: don't use Republican issue frames like "Social Security crisis."
by DC Pol Sci on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:49:29 PST
[ Parent ]

San Diego doesn't matter anymore... (4.00 / 5)

The border is a sieve.  The real interdiction efforts take place at a chokepoint on I-5 between SD and Orange County.  They have mirrors mounted in the road to examine undercarriages, etc.  This is just anti-brown people legislation with a tasty coating of Homeland Security and a crunchy center of delicious totalitarianism.

If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention!
by roxtar on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 02:27:11 PST

New Mexico (none / 0)

is where I heard the most crossings now occur because of the tightening pressure in Arizona.

by MKS on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:31:58 PST
[ Parent ]

Not exactly (none / 0)

The checkpoint you mention doesn't really do a great job of 'catching' immigrants, although it does a healthy job of getting drugs, actually.

No, SD is no longer as important to La Migra because they've pushed immigrants out into the harsh deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. They don't give a fuck if the immigrants die, so long as there's that many fewer brown people in the country, DHS is happy.

Which brings me to one of the major problems with this legislation - it could potentially open the door to some really nasty shit happening to immigrants that La Migra catches in this area, given the unprecedented breadth of the proposed law.

I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

by eugene on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:42:34 PST
[ Parent ]

Actually there are several Border (none / 0)

Patrol checkpoints coming into San Diego. There is one where you indicate, there is one on I 15 near Temecula. There is one in the East County of San Diego as you travel east to west on I8. There is one as you enter the U.S. from Tecate.

My concern would be for my friends who own homes in San Ysidro, the last U.S. exit before the Mexican border. The area has grow tremendously, and there is already a large border patrol presence. Could Homeland Security declare your property a necessary "buffer zone" and force you to sell and move? Sounds like it to me.    

The 14 mile stretch in Otay Mesa is already under the "Light up the Night" program. Mega watt lights, a 15 foot corragated metal fence,  crawling with armed Border Patrol agents using  night vision binoculars, and drones flying the area.  

Rural home owners in San Diego don't much care for either the people coming across the border or the agents hunting them. Crossers distrub the livestock, dogs, and leave trails of trash and human waste on the owners property. Border Patrol will open gates, leave them open, put their own locks on, disturb livestock, and disregard owners property rights.

Sounds like they want to do more than disturb the gnatcatcher to me.

Most Americans are a lot dumber than we give them credit for- George Carlin 2004

by maggiemae on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:47:46 PST
[ Parent ]

Please (4.00 / 5)

Please send this to the press--NYTimes, Wash Post, Salon--this is scary, and I wonder if they are doing it in part to see if they can get away with it.  Also, send it to Josh Marshall--the only way to head this thing off is to make it visible.

It seems that every once in a while somebody finds something truly agregious in a bill--I wonder how many awful things have been signed into law without our notice.

by john doh on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 02:53:01 PST

Whaaaatt??? (4.00 / 9)

I clicked on this thinking it was satire, ALL laws, ha ha, this should be funny.

Then I almost choke when I find out this is REAL!!!

Why doesn't Bush quit pussyfooting around. He should just get the Republicans to pass a law declaring him King. Then at least we could just go ahead and have a revolution and get it over with.

by bluerevolt on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 03:02:33 PST

Not Just King (4.00 / 2)

But Fuehrer, Lord High Executioner, and President for Life.

"It's their way to detain, it's their way to disgrace, with their knee in your balls, and their fist in your face." (L. Cohen).
by proudtinfoilhat on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:15:24 PST
[ Parent ]

Gosh....... (none / 0)

Bernie Kerik would have loved this.  This law would have presented such wonderful opportunities for him.
/snark

by cici414 on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 03:29:23 PST

What has always bothered me (none / 0)

were the comments that the Neo Cons were making this last summer about the elections. How we might have a terrorist attack yada yada yada. How we might have to hold off on elections. May be my tin foil hat day, but the whole idea that they can suspend our laws because of the border makes me feel a little like I am in 1984. If they can go with the theory that terrorists are at our borders, no election. Get it.
OH well, I am happy there seemed to be a knee jerk reaction to the idea of late elections, but it still creeps me out.

Being a patriot means you have to do more than wave a flag!
by melthewriter on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 04:46:14 PST

Expect the worst. (none / 0)

Expect martial law, declared one tiny jot at a time.

Does that come with Freedom Fries?
by Bob Love on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 20:25:43 PST
[ Parent ]

Agreed (none / 0)

I watched an old documentary I'd seen before on the History Channel about the Nazis, and everytime I think about it my blood chills. Same playbook, different country.

Being a patriot means you have to do more than wave a flag!
by melthewriter on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 07:11:02 PST
[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0)

So what happens next?

Learn how to take back the issue of national security. Progressives are stronger on security.
by Lucian on Tue Feb 8th, 2005 at 00:21:41 PST
[ Parent ]

A bill to herald in... (4.00 / 2)

the creation of concentration camps? This would make one man above all laws.

Extremely dangerous.

Recommended response: We have laws on the books to protect this country from terrorists. Giving the power of law, to one single man goes against every precept in our constitution. Very dangerous.

My blog is red onion

by scorpiorising on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 04:55:15 PST

Ohhhh (none / 0)

Yeah, that is true. <G> I have a deadline for my current manuscript, due Sunday night(not near finished, lol) but I am going to pull out my old Nazi stuff. Have a degree in history and that was my specialization. I can't remember off hand, but they use things that are so similiar, it would probably be something like that.

Being a patriot means you have to do more than wave a flag!
by melthewriter on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 05:02:13 PST
[ Parent ]

We have to keep this one... (none / 0)

in the spotlight. Keeping it visible is our best defense. Keep the dialogue and dissent going on laws like this.

My blog is red onion
by scorpiorising on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 06:16:52 PST
[ Parent ]

They could call camps vital to border protection (none / 0)

I don't think there's a clause in the bill that really defines clearly what constitutes barriers and all that, and so it might be that you could include construction of a shopping mall, apartment complex, military base or concentration camp in the class of things that homeland security would be able to build without judicial review.

Also: I think what this billy really, truly shows is that the key to stopping terrorism is building goodwill and improving human intelligence, so that evildoers just naturally sort of come to light. It's probably mathematically impossible to create the kind of security that would methodically screen or block all possible threats. There are so many possible threats that it would probably take all of the time left before the sun burns out to screen or block all possible threats. The only good solution is to find some way to drastically narrow the number of likely threats.

by sclminc on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 06:18:20 PST
[ Parent ]

Constitutional Issues (4.00 / 2)

For those of you worried about whether or not the Congress could waive Constitutional provisions, they can't!

Read Marbury v. Madison.  Chief Justice Marshall established in that case that: A) The Supreme Court always has the power to declare acts by Congress and the President unconstitutional, and B) The Supreme Court is the final interpreter fo the Constitution.  Marshall was emphatic that if an act by Congress violated the Constitution, the court had a duty to declare it null and void.

As my ConLaw professor was fond of saying, every government actor is bound to follow all of the Constitution, all of the time.

The Constitution gives Congress its power... so Congress is not free to excercise more power than the Constitution gives it.  The Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to waive the Constitution, so that power doesn't exist.  Any law trying to waive the Constitution would be struck down as Congress overstepping its bounds.

-Matt Arend

by Cixelsyd on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 05:36:56 PST

What if they voted it in (none / 0)

How long would it take for it to be struck down, or is there no chance they would get it passed? I am completely ignorant of constitutional law. So, does it have to pass then be struck down? And what damage can they do in the process if that does happen?

Being a patriot means you have to do more than wave a flag!
by melthewriter on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 05:42:55 PST
[ Parent ]

About half an hour (none / 0)

See all the various "partial-birth abortion" bans, or internet "decency acts" that the Repugnacons have passed in recent years. Before the ink is even dry on the president's signature, the ACLU or some other interested group goes into a federal court and asks for a temporary injunction preventing the law from going into effect. The injunction is granted pending further review. The responsible federal court takes a look at the law, and agrees that it's over-broad and/or unconstitutional on its face. The government squeals about activist judges and appeals to the Supreme Court, which agrees with the respondents that the law doesn't pass the smell test and strikes it from the books.

Michael
"Je ne regrette rien" -- Edith Piaf
Now let's take our country back!
by musing85 on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:27:39 PST
[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 0)

And what's remarkable is that even the current Court is striking these things down.  This is not exactly a pro-civil liberties Court, you know.  I think this particular one would be voted down 9-0, with even Clarence Thomas voting to hold it unconstitutional.

Piss off Frank Luntz: don't use Republican issue frames like "Social Security crisis."
by DC Pol Sci on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:43:31 PST
[ Parent ]

*Even* Clarence Thomas?! (none / 0)

Let's not go crazy here.

"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau
by fishhead on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:36:50 PST
[ Parent ]

Bwah? (none / 0)

Why not? Have you not been paying attention?

Thomas has shown himself to be capable of all manner of ridiculousness.

The comment was mild. The man is dangerous. Easily the most dangerous member of the Court--on a Court that includes Scalia.

He dissented in Hamdi v, Rumsfeld. (Basically, the preznit can do whatever he wants, so shut up and sit down. That might not technically have been part of the case. :)
See http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-6696 .pdf
if you've got a lot of time and a strong stomach)
With all the concern about the potential possibility of Abu Gonzo as a future Justice, I'm surprised that so little has been said about this. Thomas thinks that the preznit can waive habeus corpus.

He thinks that states should be allowed to establish religions.

He dissented in Miller-El v Cockrell. (Would ignore precedent to allow peremptory jury challenges based on race. He simply doesn't believe in precedent.)

You know you're a nutjob when you even Scalia and Rehnquist won't join your dissents.

He is also a liar. He claims to be an originalist, and justifies many of his obscene positions with this. However, when it doesn't suit his own political purposes, he is happy to reject originalism.

This is the man who may very well be the next Chief Justice.

And if you need anything...there's some ants.

by Skipbidder on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:06:36 PST
[ Parent ]

I know (none / 0)

which is why I was incredulous.

"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau
by fishhead on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 13:07:33 PST
[ Parent ]

whoops (none / 0)

Misread the emphasis.

Mea culpa.

And if you need anything...there's some ants.

by Skipbidder on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 13:12:24 PST
[ Parent ]

Over Barbara Boxer's dead body... (none / 0)

> This is the man who may very well be the next Chief Justice.


Piss off Frank Luntz: don't use Republican issue frames like "Social Security crisis."
by DC Pol Sci on Sun Feb 6th, 2005 at 07:37:47 PST
[ Parent ]

not sure that this would matter (none / 0)

I think that fewer dems would oppose Thomas' elevation to CJ than opposed Abu Gonzo for AG. It's more important to stop another Thomas from being put on the court than to stop the considerably less important elevation to Chief. Scalia is better than Thomas--this is true. Getting syphillis is better than getting AIDS too.

And if you need anything...there's some ants.
by Skipbidder on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 10:24:23 PST
[ Parent ]

Don't relax yet (none / 0)

Any law trying to waive the Constitution would be struck down as Congress overstepping its bounds.

Struck down by whom?  By a Republican-controlled Supreme Court?

I don't trust Scalia as far as I can throw him, and he is presumed to be the next Chief Justice of the United States.  Once there, and once his Associate Justice seat is filled by someone equally conservative, a whole lot of precedents will find themselves on the chopping block.

We know how hot he is to overturn Miranda, and I can only imagine how a weakening of Fifth Amendment rights would dovetail with all that is going on at Gitmo and other camps they may open up soon for the likes of us on dKos!!!</paranoia>

Just the fact that this is being proposed for Cailfornia (God bless Fred Korematsu), makes me uneasy.

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 07:42:39 PST
[ Parent ]

The question is still murky on this (none / 0)

Republicans clearly think that Congress can prevent the court from looking into constitutional matters...thats one reason why they've tried to pass these laws taking away their right of review for things like the 10 commandments.

Also, Marbury only said that the Supreme Court has the right to review laws, but didn't touch about whether Congress could take it away using Article 3 Section 2.

There is some precident saying that Congress can't do that...but its rather murky waters.

My guess is that the SC would just bitch slap the Congress over it, but one never knows.

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 08:50:25 PST
[ Parent ]

I just wrote my representative- (none / 0)

Let's hope that Earl Blumenauer looks at this bill and says "Yikes!" as we are...

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." -Karl Marx
by Lainie on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 05:57:17 PST

Ok.. lets be productive (4.00 / 2)

Ok.. we all know that those who crafted, sponsored, and supported this bill are fully aware of its weaknesses (e.g., unconstitutional).  

We should be asking:

What do they gain for bringing this up, knowing it will be a battle?

What damage can we do to them so as to maximize the weaknesses inherent to this action?
1)    make them seem unpatriotic, anti-constitutional
2)    make them look pathetic in their attempt at internal dominionism
3)    make them look amateur for proposing such an obviously unconstitutional bill
4)    you all add your analysis here

When we do the due diligence that explores why they do this and also how we can use it as a cudgel we win two victories (at least): we shut this misbegotten bill down, we win points off it, and let me add a third, we show that we are a "force to be reckoned with" that has one huge irritating attribute: "we" can not be subverted due to the disseminated nature of our netroots.

I say that we spontaneously organize (like we have been re: the GannonGate datadump of late) and get the frame set, then freep it out (as you all are so amazing at) but in a directed way.


Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it. - Albert Einstein

by nika7k on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 06:30:31 PST

So (none / 0)

When they make the internet illegal then what?

Learn how to take back the issue of national security. Progressives are stronger on security.
by Lucian on Tue Feb 8th, 2005 at 00:39:32 PST
[ Parent ]

A useful illustration (4.00 / 2)

Totalitarianism is not necessarily an excess of laws, so much as government unrestrained by laws.

It's a good thing the NRA won. We might be needing some guns some day soon.

"... 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 06:48:43 PST

OK, guys... (4.00 / 2)

having JUST spent like two weeks studying Congress' power to limit judicial review, I'm going to take some time and give you guys the play-by-play legal analysis of this.  I'll post it later today.  But, just in brief...

Yes, Congress can limit judicial review.  Actually under Article III, Congress can decide one day that it just wants to have a Supreme Court and dismantle all other Article III federal courts.  There is no requirement that there be federal district and appellate courts in the Constitution; they are creatures of Congress, which is why Congress can shape them accordingly.

That being said, there are wrinkles in the theory.  Namely, this doesn't pass the smell test.  I'll lay out the case law in a diary later.  But for all those citing Marbury v. Madison, you're right that courts have the power of judicial review.  But we have to realize that Congress has been inserting "no or limited review" provisions" in its legislation for quite a while.  In fact, a similar provision in the Patiot Act was just addressed in the courts.

Anyway, I have to get going to class, but this is a really interesting thread, and I'll check back later!

If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

by georgia10 on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 06:51:25 PST

Boilerplate. (4.00 / 3)

But we have to realize that Congress has been inserting "no or limited review" provisions" in its legislation for quite a while.

True. In fact, it's almost become boilerplate language, along with "notwithstanding any other provision of law."

They've become handy shortcuts in the Office of Legislative Counsel. Rather than actually working out the intricacies of legislative language and its impact on existing law, when Members demand that bills be rushed to the floor, Leg. Counsel just uses CYA ditches, like waiving all existing law and/or suspending jurisdiction.

It's a patch that's not actually designed to withstand judicial scrutiny. It's just supposed to get the bill to the floor.

by Kagro X on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:26:01 PST
[ Parent ]

And then, the lawyers get to sort it out... (none / 1)

> It's a patch that's not actually designed to withstand judicial scrutiny. It's just supposed to get the bill to the floor.

Yes, and what happens then is, when the bill is enacted, and it's challenged in court, the lawyers get to spend the hundreds of hours running up fees researching exactly what sections of other statutes are superseded, what effects there are on previous law, et cetera, and then argue based on the canons of construction that X is superseded while Y is not.  It's very, very messy, and results in judges ruling on not only what the law means but what it, in fact, says.

Strange for an administration that on other fronts has devoted much energy to stopping "activist judges."


Piss off Frank Luntz: don't use Republican issue frames like "Social Security crisis."

by DC Pol Sci on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:56:49 PST
[ Parent ]

That case with Truman and the factory? (none / 0)

Applicable?

Oh, crap.
by seriously blown cue on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 16:11:41 PST
[ Parent ]

Where to find.... (none / 0)

the co-sponsors?  

by lfin on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:06:39 PST

Will the wall keep people OUT or keep them IN? (4.00 / 4)

Martial law and military occupation is what this all means to me.  Who is to say that the walls are to keep the Mexicans and Canadians out?  Perhaps they are to keep Americans who want to flee in!

More and more the USA seems to be morphinng into the USSR: controlling the media, banning dissent, protecting elite interests, building walls to keep freedom-seekers from fleeing.  Very scary.

I have applied for a UK passport and every day I am more and more anxious to get it and have the fallback option of staying here.

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

by LondonYank on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:27:22 PST

Yeah... (none / 0)

Things like this make me that much happier to a) live within canoeing distance of Canada (they can't possibly barricade all the lakes) and b) to have a foreign-born spouse.  

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
by ssundstoel on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:47:03 PST
[ Parent ]

I am a foreign-born spouse (none / 0)

with a wonderful 15-year old son. And this is the first thing that worried me: Will we be able to leave the country?

by lecsmith on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 13:31:07 PST
[ Parent ]

why (none / 0)

why do they want to keep the liberals IN the country?


Learn how to take back the issue of national security. Progressives are stronger on security.
by Lucian on Tue Feb 8th, 2005 at 00:45:04 PST
[ Parent ]

Unconstitutional for vagueness (none / 0)

On its face.  Theoretically, it allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to even suspend laws implementing, for instance, the guarantees of the First Amendment.  And since the bar on judicial review only goes to actions taken by the DHS Secretary, the law itself can be challenged.

Even Clarence Thomas would rule this sucker unconstitutional.

The language in the law, IMHO, is illustrative of what someone in the House Legislative Counsel's office would put in if instructed by a member to write a bill that "couldn't be challenged in the courts."  It is also a sloppy effort.

What's really scary about this is that it seems to me evidence that Sensenbrenner is giving instructions to House Legislative Counsel (a nonpartisan office, comprised of lawyers, that drafts most legislation for members of the House) to write legislation that circumvents the Constitution.

But even the current Supreme Court would hold this unconstitutional 9-0.

Piss off Frank Luntz: don't use Republican issue frames like "Social Security crisis."

by DC Pol Sci on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 07:41:11 PST

My letter to Chip Pickering (none / 0)

Mr. Pickering, I was perusing the content of HR 418 when I came to the section entitled "SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS."  

The body of the section reads PRECISELY AS FOLLOWS:

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.'.

I am somewhat shocked to find your name listed as a co-sponsor.  I can only assume this is an example of sloppy language, as it clearly cannot be your intent to waive the rights of all citizens who have any connection whatsoever to an attempt to build this "wall" south of San Deigo.  

Technically, as currently written, the management and employees at Master Mix Concrete for example (a company based in your district) would have no recourse if informed they would be forced to work for no pay until the requisite amount of concrete to complete the project were produced.  This is an extreme example, but I trust my point is well made.  PLEASE make sure this bill is amended to (at a minimum) refer only to the waiver of environmental laws in the San Deigo region, as did The ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996.  I am not sure why this legislation is insuffucient, but at least the reckless provision found above should be modified.  Your responsibility as a Representative, sir, is to protect us from dangers foreign AND DOMESTIC, not to protect us from dangers foreign by making our own government a danger domestic.  

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Going over a signature with my last name, its possible Chip might even read it....


Let the word go forth From this time and place To friend and foe alike That the torch has been passed To a new generation of Americans.

by TheGryphon on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:14:16 PST

there already is a wall there now (none / 0)

I believe thats what the 1996 law authorized. It stops people from running over the border in San Ysidro/San Diego and pushes them out to East San Diego County, Imperial County and AZ

the wall is part of Operation Gate Keeper which has been pretty "effective" in San Diego BP Sector - ie reduce the amount of UDA traffic from previous levels

by christhughes on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:22:40 PST
[ Parent ]

I wrote Chip too . . . (none / 0)

Plugged my nose doing it, but . . .

"Rule of law" stuff kind of sets of bells and sirens for me.

by chrississippi on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:45:54 PST
[ Parent ]

* kicks and screams and pulls out hair * (none / 0)

yannow, it was one thing to "vote your conscience" in the 2000 election, but that was a luxury the world did not have in 2004.  yet countless smug idealogues, convinced of their inherent righteousness, couldn't have the decency to let the presidency go to a man who was at least free of messianic delusions.  and here we sit with condosleezza, albertorquemada and the complete suspension of those pesky laws.

practical realities be damned, those people chose to sacrifice everything on the altar of their philosophy.  

i detest them almost as much as the shrub voters.

</morning vitriol>

would someone be a dear and synopsize this puppy?  the other communities i frequent aren't as erudite as dailykos, but their hearts are in the right place.  i need simple, encapsualable nuggets to get them to take action.  and i must confess, i haven't had enough coffee to give it a go myself yet.

many thanks!


rick santorum

tom delay

by Cedwyn on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:19:54 PST

This post is a diversion : (none / 1)

"In a revealing admission in June, 1997, the Director of Resource Management for the U.S. Army confirmed the validity of a memorandum relating to the establishment of a civilian inmate labor program under development by the Department of the Army. The document states, "Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft Army regulation on civilian inmate labor utilization" and the procedure to "establish civilian prison camps on installations."

Amid widespread rumors, Congressman Henry Gonzales clarified the question of the
existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview, Gonzalez stated, "The truth is yes--you do have these stand by provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps." ( for source, legal discussion see : CIVILIAN INTERNMENT CAMPS UP FOR REVIEW

Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty ( by Jonathan Turley,  14 August 2002,  Los Angeles Times )

The background : War and Emergency Powers"

U.S. MILITARY CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLANNING: THE WAR AT HOME ( by Frank Morales ) :

Under the heading of "civil disturbance planning", the U.S. military is training troops and police to suppress democratic opposition in America. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, is code-named, "Operation Garden Plot". Originated in 1968, the "operational plan" has been updated over the last three decades, most recently in 1991, and was activated during the Los Angeles "riots" of 1992, and more than likely during the recent anti-WTO "Battle in Seattle."

Current U.S. military preparations for suppressing domestic civil disturbance, including the training of National Guard troops and police, are actually part of a long history of American "internal security" measures dating back to the first American Revolution. Generally, these measures have sought to thwart the aims of social justice movements, embodying the concept that within the civilian body politic lurks an enemy that one day the military might have to fight, or at least be ordered to fight.

Equipped with flexible "military operations in urban terrain" and "operations other than war" doctrine, lethal and "less-than-lethal" high-tech weaponry, US "armed forces" and "elite" militarized police units are being trained to eradicate "disorder", "disturbance" and "civil disobedience" in America....

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a plan by the United States federal government to accommodate the detention of large numbers of American citizens during times of emergency.

Through Rex-84 an undisclosed number of concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United States, for internment of dissidents and others potentially harmful to the state.

Existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987. ( Wikipedia, REX-84 )

U.S. Plans for Martial Law, Tele-Governance, and the Suspension of Elections : When the War Hits Homeby John Stanton and Wayne Madsen ( CounterPunch)

Operation Garden Plot and FM 100-19 US Military Domestic Support Plans ( Declassified FOIA Material, by
by Donald L. Cline )

"What follows is a discussion of Operation Garden Plot, the Federal Government's plan for Civil Disturbance Control using the military. This plan developed from plans put together in the 1970's under Nixon, revised in the 1980's and had been revised under Clinton. The newer Field Manual for the US Military (FM 100-19) for Domestic Support Operations refers heavily to this Plan, particularly in chapter 7.
When becoming familiar with Operation Garden Plot and with FM 100-19, the escalation in the use of the military for civil matters and the escalated training utilizing US forces in US cities, becomes clear. These are not training exercises preparing solely for actual implementation in foreign areas. They are training exercises preparing for the prospect of implementation here in our own country. " see also : Operation Garden Plot
JTF-LAJoint Task Force Los Angeles

Domestic Terrorism: General Ashcroft's "Enemy Citizens," Martial Law and Internment Camps

Internment Camps and Authoritarian US Fast Becoming Reality

~~~~~~~~~~~

William Rhenquist, chief justice of the US Supreme Court, served as a government enforcer during the Nixon Administration. Breveted to the Justice Department in 1969, he approved the plan drawn up by Tom Houston, a White House aide, that commissioned the American military to set up prison camps for the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of opponents to the Vietnam War. Testifying before a Senate committee in 1971, Rhenquist said that it was legal, under the president's authority, to send the army to suppress rebellions and enforce the laws. In 1998 he published a book, All the Laws but One, in which he argued that in time of war, civil liberties were not to be too carefully protected" - Lewis Lapham, Gag Rule : On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy, p 149.


We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. -Mark Twain [Samuel Langhornne Clemens] (1835-1910)
by Troutfishing on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 08:32:00 PST

Also, a diary : (none / 1)

AMERICAN GULAG 1 : civilian labor camps

We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. -Mark Twain [Samuel Langhornne Clemens] (1835-1910)
by Troutfishing on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:01:48 PST

Is the goal (none / 1)

To keep foreigners out, or to keep Americans in this massive prison, when it'll have become some huge fascist regime?
The same way East Germany and USSR made the Berlin wall, it's worth noting that it's not Mexico who is building barriers on the border.

Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland. Paul C. Roberts
by Clueless Joe on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:09:32 PST

Who owns the land? (none / 0)

This is not a significant issue compared to abrogation of labor laws and environmental protection, or what seems to me to be totally unconstitutional intent in the language of the bill, but is also seems this bill could be used to usurp whatever protections citizens are still entitled to under eminent domain laws.  Having lost part of my front yard to a road, I know retaining some ability to negotiate regarding the value of property taken via eminent domain is critical (although 3 and a half years have elapsed, and I havent been paid yet).

I suspect property values near to San Diego are high, and I suspect publicizing this bill in that area would raise some vocal outrage that not only can your property be taken, but you might not get paid or have any legal recourse if the payment is nominal.  Or that your front yard view might become barbed wire fencing.

Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

by barbwires on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:10:42 PST

not near the border (none / 0)

prop values are not that high near the border

they are in Chula Vista and are rising in Imperial Beach

but San Ysidro is not a desirable location. It looks a lot like a clean Tijuana or a dirty Santa Ana

I would suspect that the Feds own the border or at least have some easement on it. If you see the border at night in SD it is a little spooky (flood lights, BP vehicles, camera poles)


by christhughes on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:27:54 PST
[ Parent ]

I have a thread up diary re: this. There are (none / 0)

areas of San Ysidro, one the West side of I8 headed south, where there are homes selling in the $400-$500 k range, and several new outlet malls and a new shopping center. It is also where the Border Patrol has a compound.  

Most Americans are a lot dumber than we give them credit for- George Carlin 2004
by maggiemae on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:57:33 PST
[ Parent ]

yep thats CV (Chula Vista) (none / 0)

the whole east lakes area.

I actually looked at houses there uggh

by christhughes on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 09:17:07 PST
[ Parent ]

I am more alarmed by this bill (none / 0)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109xMwbU3::

which is already in the Senate.

It is the so-called PRIDE bill, which is an attack on the gay community.  The use of this language is nothing short of Orwellian.

proud Admin of

  • the Ithaca Action Network

    • by walmas on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:45:08 PST

    I was trying to interpret it (none / 0)

    I didn't see anything right off hand relating to what you were talking about, but it is mostly "insert this thing here, and that thing ther" could could have the same effect.

    Luckily it only has 3 co-sponsors right now, so its not like everyone is clamoring to have it passed.  Nevertheless, its good to keep an eye 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 09:53:28 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Another provision may be just as bad (none / 0)

    from section 103(a):

    (i) IN GENERAL- Any alien who... (IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of- (aa) a terrorist organization; or (bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity... is inadmissible.

    (the ellipses are of other classes of inadmissible immigrants,I'm not Dowdifying or Drudgifying).

    "Social or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity"? Like what? Hypothetically, would it include, say, "Muslims"? I'm not sure that's what it means but neither am I sure that it doesn't mean that. Things that vague make my hair stand on end, because the courts usually defer to agencies in interpreting terms that vague. And as the Supreme Court understands it, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from banning Muslim immigration.

    Oh, and by the way, according to Section 104(a)(1)(B),

    Any alien who would be considered inadmissible pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 212(a)(3) is deportable.'



    by KatherineR on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 09:57:44 PST

    Suspend all review. I think not. (none / 0)

    Again we are reminded democracy is a game with rules everyone has to agree to play by. If one side opts out of the rules, it is not as if the constitution, page by page, surrounds the house of a bully at night and carts him off to jail.
    It is more like, if one side begins to cheat the rules, the other side takes their basketball and goes home. Home. In front of the fireside. Drinking brandy and wondering, "How can we make King George take us seriously?"

    I recommend bringing back street theater and the Merry Pranksters. Wavy Gravy used to hand out red clown's noses at demonstations saying, "If they want to be filmed for international news, beating up a bunch of clowns:  We win!"

    I put flowers in the rifle barrels of the National Guard Troops that Gov. Reagan called out for the People's Park Protest in Berkeley.  One protester had already been killed. At least half of the guard troops welcomed the tension relief. We lost the skirmish but we dedicated People's Park Annex, with Berkeley's blessing, just two weeks later.

    Of course, if they do beat up the clowns...

    A democracy that is fixed, is broken.

    by Brother Artemis on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 10:01:39 PST

    American Immigration Lawyers Association (none / 0)

    The American Immigration Lawyers Association has a critical analysis of the bill here -- but they focus on the more explicitly anti-immigrant provisions and barely touch the above-cited Section 102.

    by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 11:01:36 PST

    Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights (none / 0)

    ...has more analysis here...but, like the AILA, focuses on the anti-immigrant provisions, skipping over Section 102.

    by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 11:11:35 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Is this more for usurping property rights? (none / 0)

    This sucks hard any way you look at it.  I didn't immediately come to the conclusion other posters came to as to the very broad potential effects of this.  My immediate read was that the government wants to build a wall/fence/road.  Someone might own the land that they want.

    Solution?  Suspend any laws that give people any rights to their property.

    If the ramifications were only this it would be bad enough.  The wording of this is very alarming.

    The "keep the non-whites out" crowd will absolutely love this.

    by complib on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 11:17:40 PST

    How bad can it get? (none / 0)

    We're working that out this very day here and here.

    Excerpts:


    The states that had ratified the [repeal of the 22nd] amendment were jubilant. None of them were Blue States.

    and


    What is known is that on January 14, 2008, Mudd Library, Peters Hall (administration), and Dascomb dormitory, all inside of a circle one hundred meters in radius [in the middle of the Oberlin College campus], all had multiple smoke sensor alarms activate within forty seconds on one another. Charges, plus pairs of oxygen and propane cannisters duct-taped together, were set in the ventilators shafts of all four structures.

    ...

    There would be sixteen such raids carried out that same night; the Republicans celebrated the night as the Cleansing of the Towers, a message to academicians that no place was a retreat from the party's version of truth, of right and wrong.

    and


    Homeland Security funds were sent en masse to university patrols; some of these monies went directly to the "student security initiative". Thus was the SSI born; the acronym would in time morph to Security and Safety Initiative, but most of those who began as students continued as enforcers as the Partisan Wars began in earnest.

    ...SSI squads...had taken it upon themselves to detain, and openly, other students, even remove them in front of large numbers from dorms, cafeterias even lectures, ostensibly to deliver 'suspects' and 'material witnesses' to HomeSec. Professors with critical writings or reputations were given SSI escorts 'for their own safety', even to the point of having volunteer guards at their doors. Contact with other faculty and students declined.

    That such instructors were kept safe -- from spreading their 'corruption' -- was gleefully noted by College Republican missives, who were loving their enhanced status and official backing.

    Stop by for a cup of Dystopia. Everyone's invited.

    Check out the Partisan Wars series

    by cskendrick on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:00:18 PST

    This is where my question (4.00 / 3)

    comes in most handy. I ask it every time the Reps put up a bill that gives the GOP controlled govt far more power. Usually it gets an almost viceral reaction against.

    "If Hillery becomes President do you want her to have this power?"

    Plays to their fears and reminds them that not only will they be out of power at some point but their laws will increase the power of their mortal enemies.

    by Mike S on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:11:59 PST

    Veeehrrrry Smart! (none / 1)

    I shall be using this tactic from now on.

    Cheers!

    "We need to get back to basics and start listening to people from outside Washington." - Howard Dean

    by deafmetal on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:38:56 PST
    [ Parent ]

    It's fun (none / 0)

    to watch the look on their faces when the think about it. Just don't let them get away with saying it will never happen.

    by Mike S on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 14:04:08 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Won't Happen (none / 0)

    The Rethugs will make sure we never have a Democratic president as per the last two so-called elections.  So I don't think they are the least bit worried.

    by rlharry on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 20:14:59 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Then they'd be (none / 0)

    fools. Anybody stupid enough to think there will never be another dem pres is too stupid to bother with.

    by Mike S on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 20:50:10 PST
    [ Parent ]

    To make it more poignant ... (none / 1)

    To make it even more poignant for them, say "When Hillary becomes President!

    Does that come with Freedom Fries?
    by Bob Love on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 20:45:01 PST
    [ Parent ]

    My Letter (none / 0)

    Sir:

    It appears that you are trying to put parts of HR 418 above the Constitution with the following (copied from Thomas):

    Section 102(c) [quote removed]

    I don't understand why you would try to do this. It strikes me as a betrayal of the rule of law. I, too, support sensible, enforceable laws for immigration, I, too, care about secure borders, but putting the Secretary of Homeland Security above the law is not and cannot be sensible and cannot provide us with security. It is clear to me that any Congressman who votes for such language has betrayed his office and the Constitution. If you did not intend this, please rewrite this section to be constitutional and to show that you are committed to the rule of law and that you are not trying to undermine our Constitution.

    Sincerely,

    ...

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

    by freelunch on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:14:35 PST

    Embassies (none / 0)

    Above, there was a mention of airports.  What about Embassies -- foreign Embassies within the US, and vise versa?

    Could the DHS suspend laws in US Embassies, and in areas abutting foreign embassies in the US?  And what about consulates?

    Food for thought...

    by GRCambridge on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 12:25:59 PST

    Just remember (none / 0)

    Article II is antecedent to the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendment.  Some review will of course be required by law.

    For a variety of evidence on this, see, amongst others:

    Clinton (no, not that one), A Mandatory View of Federal Court Jurisprudence, 132 U Pa L Rev 741 (part 749-50) 1984

    Redish adn WOods, Congressional Power to ontrol the Jurisdiction of Lower Federal Courts, 124 U Pa L Rev 45 (1975)

    Hart, Dialogue, 66 Harv L Rev1362 (1953)

    Amar, A Neo-Fedralist View of Article III, 65 B U L Re 205 (1985)

    Pushaw, Congresssional Power over Federal Court Jurisdiction, 19996 BYU L Rev 847.

    That it is overbroad and unconstitutional does not mean we should risk it becoming law and waiting for the courts to resolve it, however.  This is terrible litigation, and should be knocked out ASAP, let the federalists (who already think the President is King) find a new "originalist" intepretation of the Exceptions clause.

    by Ultra on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 15:01:10 PST

    Last citation (none / 0)

    1997 BYU L Rev 847.  Sorry,

    by Ultra on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 15:01:52 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Oh, one other (not as well noted) constitutional (none / 0)

    problem.

    As broadly written as that section is, its BOUND to run into a Chadha/presentment clause problem.  Congress probably cannot unilaterally defer its Article I responsibility for placing and repealing legislation....some delagation (what Peter Strauss calls "deference") is okay, but what Peter Strauss calls "DEFERENCE" may be going to far, at least in this role.

    Oh, and the constitutional concern in the law is, of course, equal protection as well as due process (laws that only are inapplicable "at the border" unfairly discriminate against suspect minorities, or at least may on the facts....see Monaghan, Constitutional Fact Review, 85 Colum L Re 229 (1985).

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

    Get real... (none / 0)

    valabor -

    Section 102 of this bill is entitled "WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS."

    The part you seem to be hung up on reads (in full):

    "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."

    The suspension of any law must clearly be relevant to this particular situation, namely the improvement of barriers at the borders.  You can't just ignore the title of the Section or chop off the end of that sentence.  You are clearly misstating the provision of this law, and taking words out of context.  How could the Secretary of Homeland Security plausibly cite this law as justification to invalidate all other U.S. laws?

    by dpcone on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 15:16:58 PST

    Of course, under the law read textually (none / 0)

    the person to determine that nexus is the Homeland Security Director.

    by Ultra on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 16:08:37 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Read the full post (none / 0)

    It explains that while the right to waive any law is limited to things which are necessary for the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border -- there is no limit on what this actually could encompass -- it would, for example, encompass the entire supply chain and decision-making chain for all things related to these roads and barriers.  In any event, the DHS Secretary decides what it encompasses, what is necessary, what is waived -- and there's no judicial review of that decision.

    DHS Secretary to John Q. Public:  "So what?  Whaddayagonnado?  Sue me?  HA!"

    by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 17:31:29 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Sounds like sedition to me (none / 0)

    Sensenbrenner is clearly guilty of trying to and advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.  He can go to jail for up to twenty years, and is no longer eligable to work for the U.S. government.

    by theboz on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 15:41:38 PST

    If you had any doubts that this experiment in (none / 0)

    Democracy called the United States of America was near death, here's more evidence.  

    What this section of the Bill does is codify the powers claimed by monarchs and despots.  Un-fing believeable.  That member of congress should be kicked out of congress for willfully betraying the Constitution.  

    Were you expecting something witty or inspiring in this space?

    by LionelEHutz on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 16:46:01 PST

    Possibly a dumb question (none / 0)

    I'm not a Constitutional expert, hell I'm barely a law abiding citizen.  But if you look at this law from the other direction, and someone please correct my public school education, is it even possible to pass this law?

    Assuming the SecHS could somehow shut down free speech, right to bear arms, right to equal protection,  voting rights, etc. based on the wording of the bill, wouldn't the Constitution automatically prevent it's being passed?  Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thing and I'm not well-versed in the law, but from a simple logical POV, I'm just asking.

    I am, however, an evil genius and here's my response campaign idea for this law: "It would allow the SecHS to start a draft!"  I think that might be an effective response to start pushing to the public but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

    Truth for authority - not authority for Truth

    by Hail Ripley on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 20:24:32 PST

    Certainly it's possible to pass a law (none / 0)

    Here's an example of another law (dealing with contracting and procurement in the Canal Zone) that's been in the U.S. Code for years:

    Sec. 3861. Procurement system

    (a) Panama Canal Acquisition Regulation

        (1) The Commission shall establish by regulation a comprehensive
    procurement system. The regulation shall be known as the ``Panama Canal
    Acquisition Regulation'' (in this section referred to as the
    ``Regulation'') and shall provide for the procurement of goods and
    services by the Commission in a manner that--
            (A) applies the fundamental operating principles and procedures
        in the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
            (B) uses efficient commercial standards of practice; and
            (C) is suitable for adoption and uninterrupted use by the
        Republic of Panama after the Canal Transfer Date.

        (2) The Regulation shall contain provisions regarding the
    establishment of the Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals described in
    section 3862 of this title.

    (b) Supplement to Regulation

        The Commission shall develop a Supplement to the Regulation (in this
    section referred to as the ``Supplement'') that identifies both the
    provisions of Federal law applicable to procurement of goods and
    services by the Commission and the provisions of Federal law waived by
    the Commission under subsection (c) of this section.

    (c) Waiver authority

        (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission shall determine which
    provisions of Federal law should not apply to procurement by the
    Commission and may waive those laws for purposes of the Regulation and
    Supplement.
        (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the Commission may not waive--
            (A) section 423 of title 41;
            (B) the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
        other than section 10(a) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 609(a)); or
            (C) civil rights, environmental, or labor laws.

    So this Commission, like the DHS, was given the authority to waive laws for certain purposes -- BUT that authority was limited.  For example, the Commission could not waive civil rights, environmental, or labor laws.  No such limitation exists in HR 418.  Indeed, HR 418 is designed PRECISELY to allow DHS to waive those very kinds of laws.

    by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 21:24:47 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Can we re-frame this for them? (none / 0)

    I think if the Repubs want to pass laws in this spirit, we need to re-frame it for them.  Any bill such as this should be described as "Does this include starting a draft?  It's a pro-draft bill!  Here comes the draft!"

    IMHO, anytime the Repubs want to grant themselves the "power" to strip away civil rights they should be labelled as the pro-draft party, tinfoil be damned!

    Truth for authority - not authority for Truth

    by Hail Ripley on Sun Feb 6th, 2005 at 07:58:20 PST
    [ Parent ]

    You know, that's not a bad idea... (none / 0)

    Theoretically, we could have this:

    DHS Director:  "How would you like to go down to San Diego, and spend a year of your life working for no pay 80 hour weeks building a barrier on the border?  Oh, and no safety requirements, no unions, just you and the hot Southwestern sun."

    You:  "Well, actually, I was going to..."

    DHS Director:  "Well guess what?  You win a no-expenses-paid trip to sunny San Diego!  Get him in the van, boys!"

    (Insert Democrat Here) for President in 2008!

    by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sun Feb 6th, 2005 at 08:56:36 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Aha! Similar analysis from last year... (none / 0)

    The Garden Club weighed in on last year's version of this bill, apparently:

    H.R. 10/S.2845 - 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act

    The Issue: One of the recommendations in the Act is to complete the final three miles of a 14 mile "fence" on the border between Mexico and the USA near San Diego, California. H.R.10 was passed in the House with amendments that state: "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 insure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section, 1331 subtitle G of version of last Homeland Security Bill." When permitted to "waive all laws", the Secretary can potentially waive long standing, valuable laws protecting our environment, civil rights, labor safety. The opportunity to waive environmental laws for National Security already exists in law. This provision mandates waiving them rather than providing a process to consider if it is necessary.  

    Relevant Position Papers: Clean Air, Clean Water, and Preservation of Native Plants  

    Background: The House passed its bill with amendments including the above clause. The provision that the Secretary shall waive means that there is no fish and wildlife oversight, no Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act enforcement, no endangered species evaluation and certainly no mitigation required for actions triggering these acts since they are waived. The interesting thing about the amendments is that even without this bill, the Attorney General is currently permitted to waive restrictions if he/she deems it necessary. However, it has never been done.  
    While a three mile section of fence may seem a small matter in the large scale of life, these three miles run along the Tijuana River and its Pacific Ocean estuary. 90% of California's estuaries have already disappeared. "To reinforce an existing section of tin fence, federal officials plan to transfer soil from area mesas to a canyon; the sedimentation will end up filling area wetlands," said Jim Peugh, the San Diego Audubon Society's conservation chair. A move he said would deprive several vulnerable birds, butterflies and plants of needed habitat. Native American groups and environmentalists have protested the provision, championed by California's Republican Reps. Doug Ose and David Dreier, saying it would allow construction crews to harm critical habitats and imperiled species and possibly damage Indian artifacts.  

    The Senate disagreed to the House amendment, but did agree to the conference so the issue is still open. The Conference Committee is chaired by Senator Susan Collins (R. ME.) who introduced the Senate bill (without the amendment). Other members of the Conference Committee are: Senators Lott; DeWine; Roberts; Voinovich; Sununu; Coleman; Lieberman; Levin; Durbin; Rockefeller; Graham FL; Lautenberg and Representatives: Hoekstra, Dreier, Hyde, Hunter, Sensenbrenner, Harman, Menendez, Skelton.  
    Suggested Action: Our concern as Garden Club members is for habitat destruction, threats to wetlands and to endangered plant species and for the precedent of waiving any environmental laws. If one of the above conferees is your Senator and/or Representative, contact them and express your deep concern for the disregard of existing federal laws and regulations and especially for the potential for creating a precedent for waiving vital environmental, civil rights and labor laws without a process for considering the necessity.  



    by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 21:30:52 PST

    This provision passed the House last year (none / 0)

    On Oct. 8, 2004, in a recorded vote, on an amendment to HR 10 (9/11 bill), this provision passed the House 256-160 (41 Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for the amendment; 6 Republicans joined the Democrats in voting against the amendment).

    by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 21:44:19 PST
    [ Parent ]

    Last year, Rep. Drier pushed this provision (none / 0)

    OMB Watch had the scoop:

    The Department of Homeland Security (which now has border control responsibilities formerly granted to the Department of Justice) is already exempted from the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act "to the extent the [DHS Secretary] determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction" of additional physical barriers and roads along the U.S. border "in areas of high illegal entry into the United States" by section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 Div. C (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1103 note). The Dreier amendment would expand this waiver to cover all laws in the U.S. Code short of the Constitution itself. It is also drafted to make the Secretary's decision unreviewable in court challenges.

    The original iteration of this amendment, as proposed in the House by Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA), would have expanded IIRIRA § 102 by listing a catalogue of environmental laws in addition to NEPA and the ESA. The version pushed by Dreier expands this exemption even further, beyond environmental laws, to put the DHS Secretary above all federal laws, environmental or otherwise, such as the following:

    • Child labor laws
    • Davis-Bacon wage determinations
    • Ethics laws
    • Age discrimination laws (which exceed constitutional guarantees)
    • Whistleblower laws
    • Employee protections
    • Procurement and contracting laws designed to assist small businesses

    It is unclear what limits, if any, would be placed on the DHS Secretary's power to waive federal law. Although subsection (b) of IIRIRA § 102 specifically charges DHS with building second and third fences along a 14-mile stretch of the southern border, that provision is only a specific instance of the larger charge in subsection (a) to "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." The Dreier amendment, which would replace the NEPA and ESA waiver in subsection (c), would permit the expanded waiver power whenever DHS deems it necessary "to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." The words "this section" apparently apply the waiver power to all of IIRIRA § 102, not just § 102(b) in particular. The Dreier amendment would thus place DHS above the law -- above all law -- whenever it acts to secure the borders and remove "obstacles to detection of illegal entrants."

    This is serious, folks.

    by valabor on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 21:51:59 PST
    [ Parent ]

    What Sensenbrenner really knows and is acting on.! (none / 1)

    Rep. Sensenbrenner who lives in Waukesha County in Wisconsin knows something for a fact that everyone else especially liberals are dismissing as fiction. What he knows is the truth since he may have hand in creating it.

    It should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention that the Rule of Law is only applied when it is convenient. So what's the big deal?

    At least Rep. Sensenbrenner has accepted the truth that was created by the decisions and actions of District Attorney of Waukesha County, Paul Bucher, who in writing created a new law by Judcial Construction that states "the only time a corporation might have comitted a crime is when someone has died".

    This new law has gone totally unreported since it set off a chain of legal events that resulted in the Dissolution of the former Republic of The United States. This is what Rep. Sensenbrenner knows for a fact and now he is simply doing the same thing Paul Bucher did and has got away with so far.

    Everyone who posts to KOS is so lost in the pettiness of ego gratification that no one knows what really happened to America when George Bush was elected to his first term. 9/11, the War in Iraq and the extension of the War to Syria and Iran are all distraction for the media while the foxes raid the domestic chicken coop.

    We know what happened because We fixed the little problem the extremist elements in Waukesha County created. Now they are attempting to do an end run around Us. What We find funny is that KOS and all the liberal websites are going to let this Fourth Reich get away with it by saying nothing due to disbelief that what is has accually happened.

    We have to give it up to Rep. Sensenbrenner and everyone in the new Fourth Reich at least they have the guts to create facts so unbelieveable that no one wants to even believe it is happening.

    Visit http://www.toxicreality.com this is the subject everyone should be talking about on this site and in the media.

    H.M. Stephen J. O'Dell


    by hmsjo on Sat Feb 5th, 2005 at 23:53:35 PST

    Scary Thing is (none / 0)

    this has surfaced in the news, it's scary to imagine what has not?

    click those ruby slippers together 3 times, and you and that dog get your ass back to kansas.. ~@^@~ ?
    by infidelpig on Sun Feb 6th, 2005 at 03:53:56 PST

    URGENT - Help me get this OUT! (none / 0)

    PDAmerica.org would like to put this on our legislative tool kit. I can't keep monitoring the diary here.... but someone PLEASE email me some left talking points (FACTS not rhetoric) on this bill ASAP! We are putting together our weekly action in the next few hours! email to kevin@pdamerica.org.

    THANK YOU!

    Kevin Spidel is the National Political Director for http://www.progressivevote.org.

    by KSpidel on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 15:15:39 PST

    latest update (none / 0)

    is here.  The House GOP is NOW MOVING THE BILL!

    by valabor on Mon Feb 7th, 2005 at 22:14:06 PST

    GOP proposes bill that would suspend ALL laws | 205 comments (205 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

    Menu
    · Create account
    · Home
    · About
    · Contact Us
    · Diaries
    · Advertising
    · Daily Kos Store
    · FAQ

    · Subscribe

    · dKosopedia
    · OurCongress.org

    Login
    Username:
    Password:

    Forget Your Username or Password?

    (-) Turn ads off

    Advertisers
    MARGARET CHO LIVE
    "I have chosen to stay and fight" www.margaretcho.com
    Read More...
    Advertisers
    Help us stop FRUIT regulations.
    "FORBIDDEN DESTINATIONS" and "NON-AUTHORIZED MARKETS."

    Some fruit growers are asking USDA to give them the authority to restrict consumer choice based on "market destination." Similar restrictions caused widespread fruit dumping years ago.

    Please help us stop fruit fascism!
    Read More...
    Advertisers
    Degree Programs
    Continue, complete, or start your liberal arts degree at New York's most progressive university. The New School's distinguished faculty and curriculum
    create a challenging educational environment for adults.
    BA, BS and combined Bachelor's/Master's options are available.
    Read More...
    Read More...
    Stop the Propaganda Machine!
    This Administration doesn't stop.

    Now the the right-wing want to hide the reality of war. They even blocked 1/3 of America from watching "Saving Private Ryan" on TV last Veterans Day.

    Join Wes Clark -- Demand that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin Stop the Propaganda Machine!
    Read More...
    CarryaBigSticker.com
    Progressive bumper stickers, fridge magnets, bike stickers. What Would Jesus Bomb?, Peace & Equality are Moral Values, Love Your Neighbor Pre-emptively, We are Creating Enemies Faster than We Can Kill Them, One Nation Under Surveillance. Free shipping. Enter customer code KOS for 5% off.
    Read More...
    The Start of Something Great...

    The Start of Something Great...
    Read More...


    Daily Kos homepage

    © 2005. Steal what you want. Powered by Scoop.