The rule of law has just been trashed by the House of Representatives.
Not only has H.R. 418 just been passed (roll call vote),
but the Farr amendment which would have struck down Section 102 has been specifically rejected (roll call vote),
and the Nadler amendment which would have struck down Section 101 has been specifically rejected (roll call vote.
It’s not over. The Senate still has to approve this bill, and perhaps it won’t. The president might veto the bill (ha) if the Senate passes it. There is still fading hope.
But look what the Republican-dominated House of Representatives has done. Look at this! It’s striking that large Republican majorities (90% of voting Republicans) have voted specifically and undeniably to gut the rule of law and grant the Secretary of Homeland Security the clear ability to nullify any law she or he deems necessary to nullify, without the ability of any court, administrative entity, or other entity to review or reject that decision.
That’s dictatorship.
That’s a police state.
That’s the position of 90% of Republicans.
That’s a passed bill, my friends.
That’s what you get when you vote Republican.
===============
To clarify, the Farr amendment vote was specifically to cut out 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.”.
So a vote for the Farr amendment was a vote FOR the rule of law. A vote against the Farr amendment was a vote AGAINST the rule of law.
It’s undeniable, since it’s a vote on that very specific amendment to strike this specific section. And it’s undeniable since there was a roll call vote.
How do we best communicate this information to expose the true Republican agenda — which is, it’s becoming clear, to undercut the rule of law and to establish an American dictatorship?
The Farr vote breaks down as follows:
R (8 Yes, 220 No)
D (170 Yes, 23 No)
Republican Hall of Honor for voting to uphold the rule of law:
===
Boehlert
Ehlers
Johnson (IL)
LoBiondo
Paul
Saxton
Shays
Wilson (NM)
===
Democratic Hall of Shame for voting to strike down the rule of law:
===
Barrow
Bean
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boren
Boucher
Cardoza
Chandler
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Herseth (triple shame, given how hard the Dems worked for her)
Holden
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
McNulty
Melancon
Reyes
Scott (GA)
Taylor (MS)
===
Do you have any specific comments as to WHY this measure was voted down? I’d look myself, but I’m on the way out the door to corrupt, I mean, tutor, a kid for SAT’s. Fun.
Anyway, if you have some comments or a link to some, I’d like to read them. I’m having trouble understanding how anyone could vote against taking this measure out. But before I rant, I’d like to read some reasons.
Well, Kevin, to be absolutely frank I have no idea why any reasonable person wouldn’t want to remove language taking out Section 102. I have no idea why any person who believes in checks and balanaces wouldn’t want to remove that language. I have no idea why any person concerned with literal dictatorship, for that is what this bill establishes, wouldn’t want to remove that language.
I am left to conclude that the 220 Republicans and 23 Democrats who voted against the Farr amendment are not reasonable people. I am left to conclude that the 220 Republicans and 23 Democrats who voted against the Farr amendment do not care about checks and balances. I am left to conclude that the 220 Republicans and 23 Democrats who voted against the Farr amendment are not bothered by the establishment of dictatorship.
Yeah, I’m upset. Anybody who cares about the preservation of our democracy should be upset.
Let me give you the line I expect the defenders of Section 102 to trot out:
“We have to get the job done, and the laws that are on the books keep us from getting the job done. We’ve given the Secretary of Homeland Security the means to get the job done.”
This is the excuse that all dictator-sympathizers give. And it’s true: dictatorship sure makes things easier for the dictator. Or, as George W. Bush put it, “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” (December 18, 2000)
Well, unless the Senate stops him, now he stands to be the dictator.
What is the Senate number for this bill?
‘Tis none yet. When it’s introduced, I’ll be sure to post it up.
Until then, you can tell your Senators that you’re aware of the contents of Section 102 of H.R. 418 (the “Real ID Act”), and that you expect them to take that language out when the bill comes to the Senate. Or, heck, they can vote the whole thing down.
This bill, at least the immigration control portion of it, is not reflective of the position that Bush has taken in regard to immigration, much to the chagrin of most Conservatives. Talk radio, at least the programs I listen to, are saying that he may not pass the bill as it is because it is too strict with regards to immigration control. Bush has advocated a more ‘liberal’ opening of our borders to law-abiding citizens; most Conservatives (and some Liberals) have advocated stricter immigration laws.
I place myself in the latter category, but not at the expense of my personal freedoms– or any other LAW-ABIDING citizen, for that matter.
I have to admit I’m somewhat conflicted with this one; on the one hand, I advocate keeping undesirables out of this country. By undesirables, I DO NOT mean the hard-working Mexicans, Guatamalans, El Salvadorians, etc. that do the jobs most Americans will not do (construction, lawn maintenence, cleaning, etc.) I worked two summers in construction during college. It was, to put it bluntly, miserable. The heat, the humidity, the dirt, the back-breaking labor- it all added up to misery. But, I consider myself lucky for having experienced what it means to do that for a living. I admire all those men (and women) who do that EVERY day, regardless of the season. They deserve some sort of security while doing the work most Americans refuse to do.
On the other hand, this whole 102 thing is, for lack of a better term, weird. How did this slip in? Why aren’t news stations (at least in Houston) covering this portion of the bill? I consider myself a pretty well-informed individual, but I haven’t heard or read any news stories pertaining to it outside of this website and a few others. Not the sort of mass exposure one would expect for a controversial measure such as this.
Confusing? Scary? Both?
Another provision would give the Homeland Security secretary authority to override all laws, including those covering the environment, labor, health, and land rights, if they block the construction of roads, fences and other barriers along U.S. borders.
The clause is designed to help finish a fence along the California-Mexico border that was delayed because of environmental concerns. Opponents said the open-ended language could lead to abuse of authority by Homeland Security.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3034530
Still, just two brief paragraphs? Hmmm…
The two paragraphs above the web link are from the article in the Houston Chronicle corresponding with the web link. Forgot to put quotes around them.
The Republicans have shoved this through lickety-split. Reaaallly fast.
Why? Same reason that legislators have always done it: because they don’t want reporters or citizens lingering over the text and actually reading it.
It’s up to us to spread the word, as in letters to the editor. Word will get out. I just hope it gets out before the Senate votes on the measure.
Pingback: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print»Blog Archive » H.R. 418 Update — Passed, with a variety of Roll Call Votes