Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
10:40 PM | 
Posted by
kender
The bill HR418, that will make it harder for illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses has a clause in it.
I will get to that in a moment. I think it is great legislation. Illigal immigrants shouldn't be here to begin with, much less driving.
Anyway, on to the bit in the bill that I am laughing about.
(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.
It goes on to state:
(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.
In other words the Dept of homeland security can build roads and barriers where and when they want to without judicial review or fear of lawsuits.
Now what would the dept. of Homeland security need to build roads and barriers for? Security? Perhaps. But I think that this is what is really afoot.
You remember Bill Clintons "No Roads Rule" where he put alot of land, and the natural resources on and in them, offlimits?
Wave to Billy Boys "No Roads Rule" as it sinks slowly into the dust bin of history due to some of the most deviously cunning and perfectly executed political maneuvering I have ever personally seen. It is almost Machiavellian.
Actually, I believe that Machiavelli would bow to the authors of this piece of legislation. Passing the senate is the problem now.
I will get to that in a moment. I think it is great legislation. Illigal immigrants shouldn't be here to begin with, much less driving.
Anyway, on to the bit in the bill that I am laughing about.
(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.
It goes on to state:
(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.
In other words the Dept of homeland security can build roads and barriers where and when they want to without judicial review or fear of lawsuits.
Now what would the dept. of Homeland security need to build roads and barriers for? Security? Perhaps. But I think that this is what is really afoot.
You remember Bill Clintons "No Roads Rule" where he put alot of land, and the natural resources on and in them, offlimits?
Wave to Billy Boys "No Roads Rule" as it sinks slowly into the dust bin of history due to some of the most deviously cunning and perfectly executed political maneuvering I have ever personally seen. It is almost Machiavellian.
Actually, I believe that Machiavelli would bow to the authors of this piece of legislation. Passing the senate is the problem now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The first issue that I have offense with that in any of the acts the DHS takes when it comes to barriers and roads can be done however they please, whether it is damaging to the environment, violates propery rights, or anything else that it may end up causing.
However, the second issue, and the most pivotal one, I think, is the fact that it simply undermines the nature of our democracy, particularly the separation of powers. When the legislative branch intervenes and tells the judicial branch what it can and cannot do, that right there destroys the American democratic system.
The judicail system has been telling the legislative what to do for years.
Nice try kid and on the surface yuor argument would hold water, but even a cursory glance is going to sink your boat.
Here in CA. as in other states, the judiciary has overturned laws that were passed by wide margins under the claim, a specious one I must add, that they were unconstitutional. The laws I am speaking of? Laws that stated we will not give free education and healthcare and benefits to illegal immigrants.
These people have broken federal laws to get here, why should they be rewarded? If you or I break a federal law we are going to federal prison.
I noticed you are a student. Please don't let the current socialist bent to the education system ruin you son. Think. Research. Think some more. Think critically. And consider the whole package before you critisize the wrapping.
Topic: Activist courts and judges,
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thomas Jefferson
There are so many contexts: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Activist Judges have bent over, so far to protect criminal's rights that there are whole neighborhoods and cities where folks of all colors can't even take a walk at night. Something wrong when criminals are a 'force to be reconded with' in a city. What happened to a family's or business's liberty from crime? Do we have to be on guard 24/7/365. I live safe area but some tools of mine were ripped the other day. we've (Americans)gotten used to it.
Federal Judges in the pursuit of special "rights" for homosexuals have by consequence, contaminated our blood supply and continue too, by protecting a bath house culture which breeds new virulence into begin bacterias and viruses. In fact I was reading about another new out break of some old non-threatening bug made super dangerous by the sick antics of fag lifestyles.
Its not that I sit around hating gays all day long, but many of them are a health threat by choice!
So if you get ill and have to go to the hospital...the super bugs are awaiting for you, right when your most vulnerable. WHICH IS IN FULL CONTEMPT OF>life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Another kind of gift by our Founders fought for and gave us, legislation by direct voting, >>Prop 187 comes to mind....but the Federal Court nullified. >>>more on 187
a horrible but typical example of just one activist US District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer overturning a sweeping state wide victory (YES60% / 40%NO) for prop 187.
Judges, State and especially the Federal Courts have been eroding democracy and enumerated rights (2nd amendment for instance) for the last 75 years. The worst period began in the 1960s and is still eroding our liberty today
There are plenty more examples...
Lurk
See what kind of people you are attracting Kender? I'm not sure what to say about Lurk except...wow, I sure am glad I don't personally know anyone who is as blindly biased and ignorant as him.
Anyway, replying to things that are actually worth replying to in this post...
It is a bit scary that we would pass legislation that would give one position so much power to abuse. Even if you love the current head of the DHS (which I don't), who knows what kind of horrible bastard could get the office next? This is a scary and bad idea. If we want to try to circumvent the judicial system, at least put some clause to the effect that the head of DHS has to get approval from a majority of the House or Senate or SOMETHING! It is ridiculous that we would allow one person to make a decision to overwrite and outrule any person's rights without and fear of retribution or punishment.
Kender - as a libertarian who supposedly cherishes his rights and freedoms I would think you would be very opposed to this type of clause.
After looking into this legislation more I realize that the section in question was put in to let the DHS build the last three miles of fence along the mexican border. it was put there specifically to bypass environmental concerns. I think it is a good clause. Environmentalists have been fucking up this country long enough. I know you are going to say that they are making sure the water is clean and the air breathable, and if they had stopped there it would be fine. Rabid environmentalists have created a huge mess in this country, not an environmental mess, but rather one of judicial activism. They are, in a big way, responsible for activists judges being so active. If there weren't these types of insane groups pushing mind-numbingly stupid lawsuits through teh court system than activists judges would have nothing to rule on except LAW, and not some agenda.
Example: Here in CA. in the last election the voters in san bernardino county passed an extension of a sales tax on themselves for road repairs and construction. Believe me the area needs it. It is one of the fastest growing regions in the country and the roads are 20 years behind in planning and construction.
Almost immediately the sierra club, a leftist environMENTAL group if ever there was one went judge shopping. They found one. Their plan is to have the tax repealed. Their argument? That the EIR, (environmental impact reports) for EACH PROJECT PROPOSED has not been done. Some of these projects are years away, and state law requires an EIR before the start of each project. The sierra club knows this. Hell, everybody with half a brain knows it.
So why did they file suit? Dunno. Maybe they get paid by the taxpayers like the ACLU. I need to check on that.
The point is that environmental activists stop much needed work form being done.
So no, I don't mind that section at all. Some leftists group will sue anyway, so why worry?
In reffrence to Lurk I wrote my own post on my own site about the comments. It seems I was a little to irritated to post it all here and well it would have been too long.
http://writergray.blogspot.com
Kender, while I oppose the "no roads rule" I'm not so sure that I agree with legislating like this. This kind of legislation is often later used for other purposes that aren't so benign.
For Chris to think about. One of the major problems with our constitution, and many of our Founding Fathers thought so, is that too much power has been given to the judicial branch of government. Now, if it has been considered a problem since 1785, or so, why hasn't it been fixed? After all that is exactly why we have the amendment process, right?
I'll toss this out here for you to ponder on. Those who like power and the ability tell others what to do, whether they be on the left or the right, like the fact that the courts have too much power and use it in their favor every chance they get.
Finally Chris, if you want proper checks and balances then you do not want the courts to be able to take action that cannot be counteracted to some extent by the legislative and executive branches.
I cannot reccomend enough that you take Kender's advice. And don't just read things that tend to your own point of view. For example, although I am a staunch believer in completely free markets (not what we have in our country) I have read Keynesian, Chicago and Marxist oriented works on the market. The only way I can truly take up an informed position on something is if I read all points of view, not just my own.
I would recommend to you reading Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Yes, they are works of fiction, but the author's used them to make significant contributions to political thought in similar fashion to what Swift did with "Gulliver's Travels".
No matter how you slice it or reread it...this just doesn't look like well written legislation to me...I am not sure I understand what this is really going to mean in practical terms and I am a lawyer and suppose to...
Post a Comment