These 42 House Democrats said yes to legalizing all illegal acts,

[genius]

which could very likely include death camps and terorist attacks on American soil. Let them know you don't want you kids to die because they decided to give a torturer involved in the financing of 9/11 the power to break all laws without review. These people need outsed in the primary as a danger to society. So do the Republians, all but 12 of whom, voted for the HR418. Even 12 of the Republicans cared more about America than these guys.

Bean
Berry
Bishop (GA)Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Butterfield
Cardoza
Case
Chandler
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Edwards
Ford
Gordon
Herseth
Holden
Hooley
Kanjorski
Lipinski
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
McNultyMe
lancon
Peterson (MN)
Ross
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Scott (GA)
Skelton
Strickland
Tanner
Taylor (MS)

[KissMeKate]

1. can you explain please?

Im not sure what they voted for?

thanks

[genius]

3. They voted to give Chertoff the power to waive any and all laws

without judicial review under Section 102 of HR 418. Any attorney familiar with construction of law will tell you that this could include laws against mass murder or false imprisonment or torture and all other laws. The lack of judicial review means a court can't touch it. The only hope is that it is a violation of separation of powers. Sam Farr tried to amend the bill to exclude this waiver before it passed but the amendment failed.

Virtually all of the big heroes voted against it.


7 Dems, including Loretta Sanchez, didn't vote.

Chertoff is expected to be confirmed Tuesday. Perhaps we should get our guys to stop him. Six of them voted for him in committee.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

15. I would very much like for an attorney to explain how this........

provision can be extended from laws governing the building of roads and barriers along the border of the U.S., to include laws against "mass murder or false imprisonment or torture and all other laws" as you suggest.

[blondeatlast]

2. Read it and weep. Literally.

Edit: maybe this time, I hope:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109BJMWYy

Thomas is NOT letting me link this today, don't know what's going on.

Edit: The link works this time, it's the printer-freindly version.

[genius]

9. Here's the site with all the names. The Dems are in italics

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll031.xml

[blondeatlast]

18. Thanks. nt

[progressiveandproud]

4. Please tell me...

this didn't happen. "It" passed the Senate?! The bill that would grant the head of the Department of Homeland Security the ability to ignore any law, without threat of judicial review?!

Tell me this didn't happen. If it did, the United States is officially a police state (as if it wasn't before... I've been young and ignorant until recently).

On edit: I apologize. The Senate has not yet voted on this s***?

[blondeatlast]

5. The House, actually, but yes--it passed.

By a wide margin.

[progressiveandproud]

7. Oh my. n/t

[genius]

6. House. It passed the House. Tell your Senator to stop it.

I'm hoping that the Senate will stop it when it gets there. The strong passage of the House bill is very discouraging. The Senate may need to filibuster. This is more important than justices, which are made irrelevant by this bill.

[progressiveandproud]

11. I will tell my Senators. In fact...

...I may do another round of calling almost all the Senators, like I did on the issue of Alberto Gonzalez.

Geez, I want to focus on local- and state-level grassroots stuff, but federal catastrophes like these can't help but grab my attention.

[blondeatlast]

12. "Justices made irrelevant." Indeed.

This is only every freedom guaranteed by the Constitution defaulted upon.

God help us.

[AG78]

8. No

It only passed in the House. I'm not shocked by anything anymore, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate did the same with the leadership they have in that chamber.

[blondeatlast]

10. Trying to nominate this for the homepage, but getting error msgs.

Please, please, keep this kicked. It must be stopped.

[blondeatlast]

13. Do you know who the twelve Republicans are?

Thomas is just not working at all for me today, I'm afraid.

[genius]

17. Check out the Thomas link. I know Ron Paul was listed as one

But he's actually a Libertarian. The Democrats are in italics and the Republicans are in regular print. The chart listed 8 Republicans voting nay and 4 not voting.

[progressiveandproud]

14. Motives, anyone?

Why would any House Democrat, let alone 42 of them, have voted for this atrocity, giving legitimacy to the neocon police state?

Are they in bed with the enemy? Is it political calculation to try to get re-elected? What, for God's sake, were they thinking?!

[blondeatlast]

16. If 12 Republicans could see the danger, what the hell were the 418 42

thinking?

I wish I knew.

A little late to the party, but welcome to DU, btw.

:toast:

[progressiveandproud]

20. Thanks.

If there's anything to cheer about lately, it's in our personal lives. And maybe in some non-federal-level politics. (I'm trying to reserve my cheering for Howard Dean. I don't know what the hell he can, or is willing to, do with a party full of DINO turncoats. But that's another discussion.)

And I love Barbara Boxer!

Can't think of much else. ;).

Jonathan

[Cocoa]

19. is NO ONE going to question "genius"'s characterization of this bill?

are all DUers just going to buy this stuff about death camps and mass murder without checking it out for themselves or asking for substantiation?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

21. I did a few posts up, but no one responded........

I'm still more or less waiting.

[Cocoa]

22. lots of Kool-aid going around

thanks for being one of the few not drinking it.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

24. Amazing isn't it?

.

[genius]

40. Those who don't see the danger are the kool-aid drinkers.

Attorneys see this as a nightmare.

[blondeatlast]

23. I'm willing to hear your defense.

Put it out there.

[Cocoa]

25. it's the other way around

post some details about this bill, and defend the claims of death camps and mass murder.

It's an immigration bill, and the clause in question relates to construction projects.

Come on, let's see how that's going to lead to legalized death camps and mass murder.

[genius]

45. "all laws" includes laws against terrorism, murder, etc.

There are no exceptions listed. It's important that we be awake and vigilant. I know someone whose gramdparents died in the death camps because they thought as you do.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

26. How does one defend against such hyperbole?

Especially when there is absolutely nothing substantive (aside from wishful thinking) in the original charge.

[progressiveandproud]

27. Actually...

...I'm not responding to Genius's characterization of the bill that just passed. I read -- it may have been on DailyKos, I forget -- the controversial portion of the bill that Genius is referring to, and that's what I'm responding to.

But I think death camps and mass murder are within the realm of possibility. What I read -- and maybe, just maybe another portion of the bill somehow negates or qualifies what I read -- gives the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the authority to ignore any and all laws, free of the possibility of being subjected to judicial review. That's what I remember reading: maybe I misinterpreted.

The point is that this is a loophole to end all loopholes.

[genius]

37. Anyone with a legal background can see how dangerous it is.

The trouble is that gullible people with no legal background don't realize that there is a long history of extending wording like this. Do a study on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause some time. Yes, any attorney who knows what he or she is talking about will tell you that it could be construed as authorization for death canps, terrorist attacks, etc.

[ticapnews]

28. This is the text of Section 102:

(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.'

Submitted without comment.

[blondeatlast]

29. Juuuuuuuust a construction bill--right.

Fuck your constitutional rights, and fuck the courts while the SHS fucks us all.

[genius]

38. It is not limited to construtiion laws. It could include laws vs murder.

Some people here should attend Con Law 101. Then they would really be scared.

[AG78]

31. Nothing to worry about

Just one guy in power picking which laws he may or may not follow anymore.

[progressiveandproud]

35. Only thing is, haven't they been doing this anyway?

I wonder if they even need the legal cover of this bill to... keep operating illegally. Law and constitution meant nothing to Alberto Gonzalez. :: shrug ::.

[progressiveandproud]

32. Maybe I overreacted a little. Hmm...

...but couldn't the Secretary of Homeland Security use the seemingly unimpeachable guise of "national security" or "border protection" or the like, as grounds for... God knows what?

Please keep in mind, y'all, that Bush and other duplicitous officials have been using these sorts of grounds for the last several years to gut the domestic budget and fund the perpetual "war on terrorism".

[blondeatlast]

34. Yeah, I might not be as concerned if this were say,

Nixon. But W.rong and Company couldn't care less about the Constitution if it gets in the way of hostile takeover of Northern Africa and Asia.

[liveoaktx]

36. Sounds like eminent domain without the homeowner/landowner

being able to take complaints to court, including if he/she didn't think compensation for having property taken is enough.

[alarimer]

46. Blatantly unconstitutional

How can ANY law not be subject to judicial review? That is not the system we have. I cannot believe the Senate would pass this.

[genius]

47. Hopefully the Senate doesn't. Unfortunately the SC isn't enforcing the

Constitution. We need to get our Senators to stop it. So far, it has just passed the House.

[Been Fishing]

30. Don't get your nickers in a twist. Read the proposed section 102.

Get a DU lawyer to explain it if you don't understand.

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.'.


While I do not agree with this law to "waiver" all environmental laws and all property rights, THIS DOES NOT "WAIVER" ALL CIVIL LIBERTIES!

Please read the sources more carefully before inflaming the DU readers.

[blondeatlast]

33. I can't afford a lawyer, perhaps you can help?

Edit: BTW, IMHO, NO American should need a lawyer to interpret pending legislation. They should come in AFTER the passage.

[genius]

39. "shall waive, all laws" is legally intepretable as "shall waive, all laws

"no judicial review" is legally interpretable as "no judicial review." The one hope is that since this law is not Constitutional, it will be thrown out anyway, but Scalia & Company doesn't seem to be concerned with enforcing the Constitution these days.

To put the first part more completely, "authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws means "authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws"

[Blue_In_AK]

41. Which 12 Republicans?

I'm always watching for "my" Congress people to vote right even though they're all Reps.

[blondeatlast]

42. See post #9, above. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

43. Thank you so much

and I am VERY pleasantly surprised to see that Don Young, R of Alaska, voted against this. In fact, we had an editorial in the paper this morning commenting on how he breaks with the president on many issues, specifically homeland security stuff, so this pleases me. He's got some other pretty wacky ideas, but at least he seems to have his head on straight on this one.

[genius]

44. Here's the list of the Republican "nays" and not voting.

But Ron Paul is really a Libertarian, or at least he claim to be. He must be registered as a Republican.

Nay

Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Paul
Pombo
Ros-Lehtinen
Smith (NJ)
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)

Not voting

Bartlett (MD)
Carter
Feeney
Ferguson