Homeland Defense and it's contractors to be exempt from all laws

[Oilwellian]

WAIVE GOODBYE. A few months back I worried about Congress developing a taste for legislation that strips federal courts of jurisdiction over any old subject. It's a common tactic on hot-button issues; liberals used it to safeguard the Reconstruction Acts after the Civil War and labor issues before the Supreme Court gave its blessing, while House Republicans have recently brought it out for show on the Pledge of Allegiance and same-sex marriage. But since when is it standard practice to slip such provisions into construction projects?

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 … 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.”

This is in Rep. James Sensenbrenner's Real ID Act, predicted to pass the House tomorrow. Its primary purpose is to introduce a national ID card; there are certainly good reasons to support that, but how can we reasonably debate it when the actual legislation indemnifies the Department of Homeland Security and its subcontractors from all laws (as the Congressional Research Service repeatedly emphasized (pdf) for anybody who wasn't paying attention)?

The current Republican leadership's distaste for U.S. law is getting more and more pronounced, most notably in the war on terrorism and now here as well. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, just who did the Republican Party beat in its "accountability moment" last November -- John Kerry and the Democratic Party, or the Constitution and the rule of law?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/02/index.html#005449

[thinkingwoman]

1. constitution strips crappy law

from the books.

We have a balance of powers outlined in the constitution. Just because Congress passes a law saying there can be no judicial review doesn't make it so.

They'd have to post an amendment.


P.S. All of the above is my opinion based on common sense and absolutely no legal training. If constitutional scholars can tell me where I'm wrong I'll be happy and humbled to listen.

[OneBlueSky]

2. you're right . . . the courts would go bullshit over this . . .

and strike it down as unconstitutional in a heartbeat . . . the one thing that all of the courts, regardless of party, agree on is that no one is going to usurp their constitutional powers . . .

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Yeah, but it would be fought in court all the way to the supreme

court, and by the time the supremes declare it unconstitutional the damage will already be done and whatever they wanted to bulldoze would be gone.

[thinkingwoman]

4. not necessarily

This supreme court, although certainly tilted toward bushco, has put the brakes on some of the bushit already.

They would put the brakes on this as well. Why? Because they are not interested in giving up any of their power. period.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I don't disagree, in general,

but this is specifically about overriding laws that get in the way of building walls & roads & security infrastructe. Those laws would be, 95% environmental laws. It only takes an hour for a bulldozer to destroy fragile habitat. They will be able to move faster than we can. Just arrange a go-ahead at 5PM, and before the court opens the next day when a challange could be filed, the damage is done.

But once it is done, it will be ruled unconstitutional.

[thinkingwoman]

6. I do see your point. nt