 | When Republicans Place Themselves Above the Law… Literally: H.R. 418 |
H.R. 418, a bill currently before the U.S. Congress, reads in part as follows:
`(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.’.
Let me restate that in plain English for you:
If H.R. 418 is passed into law,
the Secretary of Homeland Security,
a Bush appointee nobody elected,
will have the right to declare null and void any law
if she or he decides that doing so
would help roads and walls get built.
No judges will have the ability to overrule the Secretary of Homeland Security’s judgment in declaring null and void ANY LAW.
Let me put it in even starker terms: if H.R. 418 is passed into law, the Secretary of Homeland Security can declare null and void any law whenever she or he feels like it, and in doing so can’t be overruled by anyone…
…except, of course, the President, George W. Bush.
Does that make you feel comfortable?
Under this bill, the Bush administration would be granted the right to declare null and void any law, something that until now has been the job of the Congress or the courts. And under this bill, the courts have no ability to challenge the actions of the Bush administration.
Bye bye, checks and balances.
Bye bye, due process.
Bye bye, judicial review.
Bye bye, civil rights.
This is how police states happen, friends.
And guess who’s behind it.
Republicans? Why, no, it couldn’t be! Republicans are the party of the little guy standing against the nasty elitist system, right? Republicans are for small government, right? Republicans don’t want some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. to control your life, right?
Think again. Of the 126 members of Congress who have formally thrown their support behind this bill, 98.4% are Republican. That’s right, folks, this bill is 98.4% Republican pure. And it’s not just a couple of loony birds who are pushing this bill, either. The loony birds have taken over the loony bin: More than half of the 234 Republican members of the House of Representatives have signed their names to this bill, indicating their support. This bill is going places, unless we do something to stop it.
I don’t like to make long blog posts: they’re terribly unstylish. But you need to know exactly who is behind this bill while you still have access to the laws of the United States of America left at your disposal. So here, friends, is a complete list of the members of Congress who have formally supported H.R. 418. The following members of Congress support the idea that some Bush Administration bureaucrat should be able to nullify any law whenever they like, for reasons justified only to themselves, without recourse:
| Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] Rep Baker, Richard H. [LA-6] Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] Rep Bass, Charles F. [NH-2] Rep Beauprez, Bob [CO-7] Rep Bilirakis, Michael [FL-9] Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] Rep Bono, Mary [CA-45] Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] Rep Bradley, Jeb [NH-1] Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] Rep Chocola, Chris [IN-2] Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] Rep Cox, Christopher [CA-48] Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [CA-50] Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] Rep Davis, Tom [VA-11] Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-10] Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] |
Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13] Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] Rep Gillmor, Paul E. [OH-5] Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] Rep Gutknecht, Gil [MN-1] Rep Hart, Melissa A. [PA-4] Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] Rep Keller, Ric [FL-8] Rep Kennedy, Mark R. [MN-6] Rep King, Steve [IA-5] Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] Rep Kline, John [MN-2] Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] Rep Linder, John [GA-7] Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] Rep McCrery, Jim [LA-4] Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] Rep McKeon, Howard P. (Buck) [CA-25] Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] |
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] Rep Northup, Anne M. [KY-3] Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] Rep Osborne, Tom [NE-3] Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) [MS-3] Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3] Rep Rogers, Mike [MI-8] Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [FL-22] Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] Rep Sweeney, John E. [NY-20] Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] Rep Thomas, William M. [CA-22] Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] |
If you think it’s not a good thing for Bush administration officials to be able to nullify laws whenever they feel like it, without review, then for Pete’s Sake don’t just sit there and kvetch to your friends. Here are two simple things you can do:
1) Contact your own member of Congress and ask them to explain their conduct regarding this bill. Congratulate them if they haven’t signed on. If they have decided to support this sort of rule by decree, let them know exactly how far they are out of line. Don’t know who your member of Congress is? Click here to find out, and to find out how best to get in touch with him or her.
2) It’s sad but true that often such letters, phone calls and faxes go unanswered (e-mails to Representatives are almost universally ignored). Perhaps your local representative might notice a letter questioning their level of involvement in the issue if it were to appear in a local newspaper, where thousands of other eyes can also witness the question. Click here, and you can find out how to easily submit a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.
Contact Us
Finally! the reason that we have a second amendment becomes clear even to the most deluded of our party! If you STILL support gun control with THIS in the offing, then maybe Washington, Jefferson the Adams brothers,et al,had a hopeless dream after all, folks because THAT is EXACTLY the kind of “well-regulated militia” they were talking about: a well armed, determined group that would be willing to lay down their lives to stop this kind of crypto-fascist coup d’etat from being rubber-stamped into place. God save the
Republic…(from the republicans)
Comment by mike — 2/9/2005 @ 12:01 am
Hey, I’ve never had a problem with the second amendment.
Comment by J. Matthew — 2/9/2005 @ 7:16 am
Mike, I don’t think that an armed insurrection is going to prevent America from turning into a police state. On the contrary, it would encourage it.
Take a look at Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Every house had a gun in it, and it didn’t do a thing to prevent tyranny.
Even if we take your idea at face value, the days when a bunch of rebels with rifles could compete with the government’s military force are long, long over.
The way we will defeat the Republicans’ continued attacks on the rule of law is by using the force of what law is left. In 2006, we have to vote the Republicans out of office.
Shooting at our own country’s soldiers and law enforcement officers is not going to help anything. Possessing a firearm may be legal, but shooting it at another human being is not. We cannot protect the rule of law by violating it ourselves.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 2/9/2005 @ 7:41 am
That… Is really scary…
Uhh… Why isn’t it all over the news over here? I’m pretty sure this is the sort of thing people WANT to know about early on…
Comment by HareTrinity — 2/9/2005 @ 9:18 am
Hare, an unfortunate thing is happening in America. The Republicans have the idea that, with the smallest presidential victory margin in generations, they have a mandate to do whatever they want. At the same time, many progressives in America seem to have gone on a kind of mental vacation from reading the news - it hurts them too much to pay attention any more, and so they don’t.
We’re doing all we can to bring this information to the public, but the majority of the American public increasingly either isn’t bothered by things like this, or has retreated into a little corner of denial.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s still a good group of Americans that are trying to keep freedom and the rule of law alive, but they’re a minority. We’re doing all we can to keep that minority going, but these are undeniably dark days.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 2/9/2005 @ 10:00 am
Would you mind terribly if i copied this post and put it on my sites, with refrences here of course.
Comment by Karl — 2/9/2005 @ 6:00 pm
Karl,
It’s no problem at all if you take this post for your site, so long as you reference it here. The most important thing of all is to spread the word.
Comment by J. Clifford Cook — 2/9/2005 @ 6:14 pm
Hm…
Did you want me to try contacting the English press? Not the type of thing I normally do, so I don’t know how well it will go, but I could give it a shot.
Comment by HareTrinity — 2/9/2005 @ 6:55 pm
[…] e Shitter)
Filed under: Current Events — Mat @ 1:46 pm
Via Denny, via Irregular Times: H.R. […]
Pingback by The Door From Hell » H.R. Puffinstuff (Your Rights Down the Shitter) — 2/9/2005 @ 7:46 pm
HareTrinity,
That’s a great idea. We’re all in this together, American or not. We can’t afford to have our border regions within the United States become law free zones like Guantanamo, that’s for sure!
Comment by J. Clifford Cook — 2/9/2005 @ 7:57 pm
“The Republicans have the idea that, with the smallest presidential victory margin in generations”
True, but this election had the highest voter turnout in history. What is your point?
I’ve read a summary of the bill at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-418
and I’m not seeing the part where our country is doomed to become a police state.
What this bill attempts to prevent is the lackadaisical (sp?) border security pre- and post-9/11. Yes, it mentions the Homeland Security dude can circumvent laws to protect our borders. I’m not seeing how this equates to a police state.
Our borders have been too friendly for too long. It’s about damn time we filter out people who have no business being here. When it’s harder to get a Sears charge card than it is to enter the USA, some things have to change.
Comment by Kevin — 2/10/2005 @ 9:14 am
Hey gang…
Am I missing something in my own interpretation of this? It seems to say that the Secretary of Homeland Security (”SecHoSec?”) can overturn any law in the land…associated with building roads and walls. I mean, it still seems weird to put him in charge of that kind of thing. But this would seem to give him the power to create a new road that leads to his new (walled) jail …but not the power to put anyone in it.
Right? The final clauses all point back to the first, which is sharply bounded by the “roads and walls” bit.
I’m not in favor of this, or Bush, or the rest. But why see this as a sweeping end to checks and balances?
- Tom
Comment by Tom Kelleher — 2/10/2005 @ 10:47 am
Kevin — read the actual bill, not the summary of it. You’ll see the bill text which I directly quote.
Tom — sole discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security is key. To build roads and walls in the vicinity of a national border, do you need to cancel environmental regulations? Ownership of property? Civil rights? Right to assemble to protest the erection of such roads and barriers in the vicinity of borders? The Secretary of Homeland Security gets to decide, gets to decide what the standards are for deciding. Nobody else gets to contradict that decision, except the president, at whose bequest the Secretary is already acting. The possibilities are endless, and this gives the Bush administration a blank check to pursue those possibilities without any legal hindrance. If you believe in a nation of laws, and not fascism, this is a big, big problem.
Little laws like this make for big government intrusion into the liberties, freedoms, and standards that have been built up and protected over the course of centuries. That’s the problem.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 2/10/2005 @ 11:36 am
J.Matthew: I did read the actual text, and I did see the part you quoted; I’m not debating that.
What I fear is happening is a sort of “Doomsday Prophet” mentallity here– always seeing the worst possible scenario for a given situation. I’m guilty of that at times myself. But just consider this: Over 200 years of freedom annihilated by one bill? Maybe in a 3rd world country, but not here. Not as long as Ted Nugent is alive!
I am willing to bet money that that particular provision will not pass. It can’t pass. It’s totally illogical and flies in the face of everything for which this country stands.
I will be the first in line with the opposition should ANY liberties/freedoms be taken away from LAW-ABIDING citizens/legal aliens of this country.
Comment by Kevin — 2/10/2005 @ 12:16 pm
Kevin,
That’s cool. But now 140 members of Congress, 99% of them being Republican, are cosponsoring the legislation. That’s a majority of Republican members of Congress. That’s a lot of support.
I hope you’re right. I hope it doesn’t pass. But I’ve hoped a lot of things in the past, and I’ve learned that sometimes hope doesn’t mean much.
Comment by J. Matthew Cook — 2/10/2005 @ 1:56 pm
Hate to say I told you so…
I really hate to say it.
Does the Republican Party have no shame?
Comment by J. Matthew — 2/10/2005 @ 6:15 pm
What is the Senate Bill No. that is the counterpart to HR 418? Need to know to have any chance to stop or slow it down. Thanks
Comment by Frank Cress — 2/15/2005 @ 2:34 am
What is the Senate Bill No. that is the counterpart to HR 418? Need to know to have any chance to stop or slow it down. Thanks
Comment by Frank Cress — 2/15/2005 @ 2:37 am
First off, I don’t like the fact that big brother is taking certain liberties.
But, more is going on than you could even imagine, including the fact that we involved ourselves into an ages old conflict between Muslims and Israel.
Now we have to worry about groups of terrorist using chemical, biological and dirty bombs in 5 US cities. It is too late to apologize to the muslim world, they want to see our way of life destroyed.
God help us all, we put our hands in s*it and now they stink !!!
Comment by J. Peters — 2/19/2005 @ 2:52 am
Before reading your blog, I posted on MSN.groups.headlines a posting “Hr.418,Verichip,…” In the post I too wrote about the placing “above the law and beyond juriprudence” of the Sec.Homeland Security…put that together with verichip ID and sattelite tracking…walls can not only keep people out, but they can lock people in…scarey.
Comment by CL Sanders — 2/19/2005 @ 5:05 am
Tom - You’re assuming *only* Secretaries with both common sense and 100% pure motives for the remaining life of the nation.
The problem is this: because this bill removes him from under the oversight of the law, what is considered related to the building of roads and walls is subject *only* to his own personal judgment. Let’s say, for example, that this Secretary decides he doesn’t like… oh, some abortion law. Now, you know and I know that abortion and building roads are *completely* unrelated. (And, chances are, the Secretary does, too.) In fact, the entire population could say, “Hey, wait a minute, you can’t nullify that law; it has nothing to do with building roads or walls.” But if he *says* it does and renders it null, there’s nothing we can do about it. We have no recourse, because the bill specifies that his nullifications are unquestionable. Then add to that the fact that if he’s nullifying a law that a segment of the population also didn’t like, that particular segment is likely to be supportive of him in it, because we, as a people, are consistently more concerned with results than with Constitutionality. (This is all, of course, assuming that the bill passes the Senate.)
And this blog post doesn’t even touch on other problems with this bill!
Comment by Rachel Ramey — 2/21/2005 @ 1:27 pm
I had no idea that “road and wall building” was so important. I assume this has something to do with those ominous walls they have been building along the sides of interstate highways. It’s likely this law only has force and effect on federal property (just who “owns” the interstate highways?). I doubt this particular bill (law) means much but it does set another dangerous precedent. It’s certainly not the first law of it’s type. Congress passed a similar law right after the civil war that stripped the courts of all jurisdiction to hear any case challenging the actions of Union generals who were administering the Southern states’ governments during reconstruction. This current road and wall building power is just a device to bring federal martial law rule into all the Union states. Even a good president can’t stop or control an evil congress. Andrew Johnson vetoed all the reconstruction bills but his vetoes were ineffective because there was always more than 2/3rds support in Congress.
Comment by Bruce Leo Hartmann — 2/22/2005 @ 3:29 pm
Ease up on the reefer guys.
Comment by Joe Barry Paranoid — 2/26/2005 @ 9:41 am
[…] ile instances in which Congress has decided to make certain people unequal under the law. H.R. 418 (The “REAL I […]
Pingback by Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print»Blog Archive » The Fundamentalist Congress: Don’t Like Court Rulings? Ignore Them in the Name of Jesus! — 6/19/2005 @ 7:28 pm
I told everyone the fool was dangerous when he was governor of Texas, but who am I?
Comment by G.D. Wilkerson — 1/2/2006 @ 1:18 am