Chertoff may void judge's order to halt border fence

[kskiska]

Source: Arizona Daily Star

PHOENIX — The nation's top security official may use his power to unilaterally trump a federal court order halting construction of a fence on a stretch of the Arizona-Mexico border.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is weighing whether to invoke a section of federal law that allows him to exempt border construction projects from any law, his press aide, Russ Knocke, told Capitol Media Services. That includes requirements for studies on environmental impacts of federally funded projects.

The move would not be unprecedented: Chertoff used the power at least twice since it was granted.

In 2005 he decided to build fencing near San Diego without conducting environmental studies. And in January he issued a waiver from all laws for a project along the edge of the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in Southwestern Arizona.

The possibility of Chertoff again exempting his agency from environmental laws comes days after a federal judge in Washington stopped construction of a nearly two-mile stretch of fence at the foot of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area southeast of Tucson. The conservation area, designated by Congress in 1988, is described on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Web site as ecologically "one of the most important riparian areas in the United States."

Read more: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/206203

[JDPriestly]

1. And who was it that said we were not supposed to compare the

Bush regime to the NAZIs? Could you explain why again?

[tritsofme]

3. Lol, well this is a case where Chertoff seems to have the power of federal law

on his side.

And I'm pretty sure we're talking about a border fence here that was sanctioned by Congress fairly recently.

I mean if you want to start comparing them with Nazis, at least try to come up with a better example.

[aquart]

7. No, this is a really good example.

I'm sure the judges will be just THRILLED.

[spotbird]

18. I suspect the judge

ruled on a different area of law and did not overrule congress.

If there is a conflict in laws the courts role historically was to resolve them. The executive did not have the authority to resolve these matters unilaterally. That is when the laws meant something.

The fascist comparison is correct.

[Toots]

20. No this is a case of the Bush* Administration exempting themselves from the Law

Judges rule on the LAW and the Bush* Administration says it is above the Law and can do away with it any time they wish. Since when can the Administration overrule a federal judge?

[iverglas]

32. laws that exempt the executive branch from the law

are kinda the definition of totalitarianism ...

[Vincardog]

5. The NAZIs also had the law on their side. Fascism and police states sneak up on you.

[cstanleytech]

6. Enforcing

immigration laws is hardly fascists or Nazi like though, that aside I think the fence is a dumb idea and a waste of money because I'm betting it wont have much if any real impact on people entering the country illegally not to mention the sheer cost to maintain such a structure.
It's being erected is more of a show of "Hey, see we are doing something" than any real effort to stop people from entering the country illegally.

[Vincardog]

24. Did you read the whole thread? They are saying they can ignore the ruling of the court. That is NAZI

That the death head friend of the death cult can tell the court to STFU about making the death machine follow the rules that is fascist. Welcome to the USPS (That is the United States Police State)

[datadiva]

2. What good are judges when we have Skeletor?

These people make their own laws. Ours mean nothing to them. Damn, I am so tired of this shit.

[pinto]

4. Agggh. Bremer mind set redux. (aside) The judge's ruling was rooted in sound

*federal* environmental assessments, as noted.

[ProudDad]

8. Why didn't the fucking Dems filibuster that fucking misnamed patriot act again? (n/t)

[depakid]

11. Cowardice

Simple as that. It's the best word that applies.

[leftchick]

12. Complicity

I disagree. If they were really working for us it would be cowardice. As it is they are working for corporate america therefore they are complicit enablers of the bushco** fascist regime.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. It's the Duopoly, Stupid.

The Corporate Kleptocracy and War Party is in control of both de facto official political parties, all three branches of the federal government, broadcast media, and exerts substantial control over the print media as well. They are all marching together spewing their coordinated bullshit, all rationalized by their neo-platonian straussian ideology, as their 'secret' plan marches global civilization over the cliff of peak oil/catastrophic climate change disaster.

[leftchick]

16. well....

you certainly said that much better than I. That is it in a nutshell.

:(

[tomp]

22. stupidity for president!!!!! nt

[spotbird]

19. At this point it's clear that

they have no objection. They go with the Republicans whether or not there is risk, it's not cowardice.

[ProudDad]

26. Darn, didn't put in my :rhetorical: smiley (n/t)

[krj44]

9. building a fence on the border

would be similar to the nazis` building a fence in warsaw to keep the jews inside warsaw.

[MetaTrope]

13. Or after the Nazis

Still, Operation Paperclip gave us enough Nazi government assets...

[flordehinojos]

10. chert off ... a man with a small soul, small mind, zero understanding of anything other than the

"gut," "feeling," "of," "terror ... terror ... terror" who has been given a power and control joy stick he knows not the use or meaning of ... just like the asinine bush boy king who gave him the joy stick.

[rodeodance]

14. A Dem in AZ supports Chertoff. but also says CONGRESS can overide Cheroff if it has the WILL!!

....Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., whose district includes the river, does not support repeal of Chertoff's power.
"Border security has to be a top concern in a state like this," said C.J. Karamargin, Giffords' press aide. He said the congresswoman believes federal officials "should have the tools they need to do the job."
Bob Dreher, vice president for conservation law for Defenders of Wildlife, said what might stop Chertoff from exempting the project from federal laws is, "They have to do, I think, the politically costly thing of publicly saying, 'We're above the law.' " He said that might be what kept Chertoff from waiving environmental laws for a similar border project in Texas.
While Giffords is unwilling to repeal the law, she is willing to apply pressure.
She is one of five members of Congress who wrote Chertoff last week asking him to delay further work on the project, prepare a full environmental impact statement and conduct public hearings, something not done before construction began late last month.

[dbackjon]

25. I called her office in Tucson

And expressed my concern. I don't live in her district (I live in a major Rethug district), but I send a lot of time and money birding in her district, and am very familar with the area they are trying to destroy with a worthless fence.


Something DOES need to be done - you have to be very careful in that area because of the illegals - we have come across food/clothing/water caches, but the fence is the wrong approach.

[ProudDad]

28. Food, water and jobs would be nice

And stop fucking up their country (thanks, clinton/bush/NAFTA/corporate capitalist fucks)...that might help too...

[ProudDad]

27. We've been working on her -- in person

but we're from an R+1 district (barely republican) and she's probably going to have to run against a well funded "arnold" type puke next time who will doubtless be portraying her as a drooling, left-looney, liberal...

And she IS a capitalist...

[bemildred]

17. Cool. A law that says you don't have to obey the law.

Almost seems like a paradox, doesn't it?

[Javaman]

21. Everything I say is a lie...

I am now telling the truth...

[Baby Snooks]

23. The Guiding Principle of Republicans...

"The law does not apply to us."

[Igel]

29. Anybody know what law Chertoff's referring to in deriving his

authority to waive the other legal requirements?

Some posters seem to have assumed that it's the "Patriot Act" or some recent measure; others seem to assume that the Arizona Star's article notwithstanding, there's no legal basis for anything other than Chertoff's following what the judge says in this case, based on the law he cites; others seem to assume that if a judge says 'no' on the basis of one law, whatever Congress said elsewhere is suddenly trumped by the judge's decision.

Anybody got a reference to the appropriate statute?

[EFerrari]

30. How the hell is that legal? nt

[Supersedeas]

31. the Article III courts mean nothing to the Neo-Cons