Republicans pass legislation that trashes the Constitution!!!!

[Just Me]

HR 418 (Real ID Act) contains a provision found in section 102 which is unconstitutional on its face.

The provision grants the Homeland Security Secretary the power to suspend ANY and ALL laws. The power to suspend laws has NO qualification whatsoever!!!

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12490-2005Feb9.html


-snip-

,...the bill contains a bizarre provision that would allow the secretary of homeland security to waive "all laws" that, in his "sole discretion," he "determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of . . . barriers and roads" used to secure borders. The bill, Mr. Sensenbrenner said in a floor statement yesterday, is needed "to complete gaps in the San Diego border security fence, which is still stymied eight years after congressional authorization"; it appears directed principally at environmental laws. But it goes way beyond whatever waivers may be necessary in that case -- effectively allowing the department to put itself above any law it finds inconvenient in border security construction and explicitly stripping the courts of any review. Congress should not be so contemptuous of the rule of law.

-end snip-


It appears the Republicans have simply gone goofy on power!!!

What the hell is wrong with these people?!?!?! :shrug:
DAMN!!! :mad:

[dave123williams]

1. That law is prima facia unconstitutional...it'll die in court.

[havocmom]

2. Assuming we will be able to access courts in the future.

Seems to be more and more limits on that too.

[dave123williams]

10. Of course they don't like courts; they're held accountable in them.

[havocmom]

12. Not often enough. (n/t)

[Zhade]

23. Except, of course, when the highest court in the land...

...illegally places your administration into power, lets you keep energy meetings secret, and is basically on your team!

[progressiveandproud]

22. That is, it ought to die in court. n/t

[proud patriot]

3. Oh I'm writing your subjectline on the back of my car

for my Daily message ...:D

thanks :hi:

[ultraist]

7. With your window chalk? Where did you get that?

[proud patriot]

11. I get mine at a store called Party Time

but I'm sure auto parts stores and other artsy
stores carry it ...I'd start in the phone for
your area :hi:

there are all kinds of colors , but it does wash
off in the rain ...

[Just Me]

14. Thank you.

It's hard work, really really hard work getting those subject lines just right. x(

:bounce:

[proud patriot]

29. Okay this is on my car now

"republicans Trash the Constitution w/ H.R. 418 sec. 102
look it up ! ! "

:evilgrin: as I sing "I got to be meeeeeeeee" LOL

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. And then they will be "activist judges" when they kill it.

Even though they know damn well it was unconstitutional to begin with.

[johnaries]

44. Is that picture from a Jeff Gannon Website?

:evilgrin:

[G_j]

5. this says the House will vote today

any news?

[suffragette]

15. the House passed it

It will now go to the Senate.
We need to fight this as hard as we can.
I posted on the bill here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x323026

[G_j]

18. damn...

thanks, and I agree

[Just Me]

16. The Dems tried everything to block it. The RepubliCONs pushed it

through!!!

[flordehinojos]

6. WE ARE THE NEW SOVIET UNION OF THE 21ST CENTURY.

PLEASE GRIEVE FOR LADY LIBERTY. THE BUSH FASCIST FAMILY EVIL EMPIRE AND THEIR REPUBLICANS KISS *** HAVE JUST DRIVEN A KNIFE THROUGH HER.

[blondeatlast]

37. She survived al-Qaeda, only to be done in by her own.

Only the Senate can save her now.

42 Democrats voted FOR it, 12 Republicans voted AGAINST it.

[coloradodem2005]

8. Well. What else is new?

[CWebster]

9. There is a vote in the Senate right now

about limiting class action suits.

Along with the usual cast who votes with the Regressives to support corporate interests: Schumer, Lieberman, Feinstein, for example--guess who else? Barak Obama. Could I have heard that wrong?

[G_j]

13. oh F%$#k! here we go again

about this "class action" legislation:
========================

Public Citizen Press

Feb. 9, 2005

Senate on Track to Lock Consumers Out of Courthouse, Invite More Market
Deception

Statement of Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook

By defeating amendments that would make the class action bill fair to
consumers, the Senate made it exceedingly clear that its allegiance lies
with banks, credit card companies, drug manufacturers, big insurance
companies and other major corporations that fund campaigns and don’t
want to be held accountable for wrongdoing.

The result of this legislation, if enacted into law, will be more abuse and deception of consumers by unscrupulous businesses, because consumers will be locked out of the courthouse.

This bill creates a classic Catch-22 for consumers. Congress will be telling consumers that class actions based on state law must be heard in federal court, but the doors to the federal courthouse will be locked. Federal judges typically don’t allow such suits to go forward; they view them as unmanageable because they are based on a variety of different state consumer protection laws. The Feinstein- Bingaman amendment would have allowed federal judges to hear these cases, but its defeat ensures that corporate lobbyists will achieve their desired results: the elimination of virtually all class actions of significance. This will occur because there is no federal consumer protection law consumers can use to seek remedies.

If this bill is enacted, as it appears it will be, corporate wrongdoers will have a green light to lie, cheat and steal without fear of being held to account. The phrase “consumer beware” will once again be the law of the marketplace.


http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1874 .

For more information on class actions,
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/class_action /

[CWebster]

19. Yep and it sounded like Reid voted against it while Obama for it

I could be wrong though, it is hard to keep track listening on headphones and doing other things.

Bill just passed.

Don't you think it odd, that with the exception of Jeffords, an Independent, Democrats will often vote with Repugs, whereas Repugs seldom, if ever vote with Dems--but it is Dems charged with lack of bi-partisanship or as "obstructionist".

[G_j]

20. "our way or the highway"

& it seems many Dems agree..

[progressiveandproud]

21. Thank you...

<<Don't you think it odd, that with the exception of Jeffords, an Independent, Democrats will often vote with Repugs, whereas Repugs seldom, if ever vote with Dems--but it is Dems charged with lack of bi-partisanship or as "obstructionist".>>

...for articulating something that's been bugging me.

I'm sure you remember, by the way, the recent Senate vote to confirm Alberto Gonzalez as U.S. A.G., despite his pro-torture/anti-Geneva Conventions credentials. When six Democrats (or was it five?) broke the back of the planned filibuster and approved Gonzalez, but NOT ONE REPUBLICAN BROKE AGAINST GONZALEZ, not even the so-called "moderate" Repubs.

What a farce, the existence of "moderate" Repubs in office in this day and age. Only it's reality. :: slaps forehead ::.

Still, I laugh when I think of Christine Todd Whitman's new book lamenting the disempowerment of Repub "moderates". Who's she fooling? As far as I'm concerned, there are none left, at least not on the national level.

Jonathan

[G_j]

32. delete

oops, wrong thread..

[Zhade]

24. What the FUCK is with Obama?

NT!

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. In the Senate

This bill was passed by the House.

[Zhade]

34. Right, but that was more a general comment than about this one vote.

NT!

[candy]

17. Is it laws or the Constitution that is trashed?

No Constitutional scholar here,obviously.

Did all of the laws it will undermine pass constititutional muster? Were those laws ever challenged?

What exactly,in the Constitution,will be trashed?

[Just Me]

25. It trashes separation of powers by placing power in a person,...

,...to suspend laws.

Trashes the Constitution on its face.

If you want a full legal analysis, search http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

[candy]

39. Thank you for the link!

[Just Me]

40. Your welcome!!!

If I had the "time" to put out the particulars, I would.

Moreover, Americans just want a bottom line,...which I "try" to provide especially in face of a CORRUPT AND MANIPULATIVE REGIME!!!

[atre]

31. Uh... yeah.... Please read the Constitution

This is one of the things that is so sad about Americans today. They think the "Constitution" only includes the Bill of Rights, ignoring altogether that it is responsible for all of the mechanics of the current system. Bicameralism, Presentment, etc; they're all in there and they're no less mandatory than the First or Fourth Amendments. For someone to think that a law which grants a member of the Executive Branch absolute power is not unconstitutional just shocks me to no end.

The manner in which laws must be adopted or changed must follow the precepts of Article I, including passing a majority of both houses of Congress before being duly presented to the President for signing. This Constitutional process is mandatory; not directory. Read INS v. Chadha. If you allow a member of the Executive Branch (of which the Homeland Security Secretary is) at his "sole discretion" to repeal, suspend, or create exceptions to laws which have passed through the Article I, then the Article I legislative process is breached, because repeals and amendments must also go through the legislative process. While it is true that Congress can defer its law-making powers to other agencies in the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court has greatly limited its power to do so, placing a number of restrictions, not the least of which is that the agencies cannot create law contradicting laws passed by Congress.

There's also a less clear- but no less blatant- breach of the separation of powers. If the Secretary of Homeland Security, a member of the Executive Branch, is granted such powers, it will not only usurp the legislative function but also suspend judicial review of his actions.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=462&invol=919

[candy]

38. I have read the Constitution,many times.I am not a scholar.

I asked a question. Period.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. 42 Democrats also voted for this and 8 Republicans opposed it

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

[G_j]

28. 42 ?!?!?

:argh:

[SoCalifer]

30. Quick Sample

Quickly off the top of my head these unconstitutional acts come to my mind, but we still have them don't we.. My point being.. Don't relax on the notion that because something is "unconstitutional" that it won't be inflicted upon us.

- Committing U.S. troops to war without a declaration of war by Congress is unconstitutional.
- The War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
- Asset seizure without due process is unconstitutional.
- Investigative detention is unconstitutional (reference Jose Padilla & Arab Americans).
- Most of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
- Restrictions placed on firearms is unconstitutional.
- Police random road check-points & having to show ID is unconstitutional.
- The Prohibition against marijuana is unconstitutional.
- The War On Drugs itself is unconstitutional.
- Drug urine test requirements for employment is unconstitutional.
- The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.
- Fractional Reserve Banking results in taxation without representation and therefore is unconstitutional.
- Flying the U.S. Battle flag (our flag with gold fringe around the sides) in every court house and non-military government building is unconstitutional.




Now in my opinion it is VERY important to understand how these things work. It's very important to understand that governments use the "age old" tactic of "Problem - Reaction - Solution".

This is the process where the government either creates, causes or allows a problem to happen in order to cause a reaction from the people so that then they (the government) can offer their solution.

Now with this in mind and the onslaught of fear mongering from the government/news media about terrorists and our "broken borders" and all the news reporting about illegal aliens using fake ID cards to gain access to such things as air travel. I will submit to you that we will see sometime in the not too distant future acts of violence where they will cite national security problems because of no national ID system. This may include but, not limited to, terrorists acts involving airlines.

The news media will report over and over and over again the horrible scenes and about how the fake ID's were a critical factor. Then when the people look ripe to logically accept national Homeland Security ID cards, the government will offer their solution.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. How are Drug urine test requirements for employment is unconstitutional?

:shrug:

[Disturbed]

35. Values issue.

"corporate wrongdoers will have a green light to lie, cheat and steal without fear of being held to account."

This is on the top 10 of Rethug. (Fascist) Values List.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Values and constitutionality are not always the same thing

[SoCalifer]

36. Hi Freddie Staubbs..

How does being forced to submit to urine drug tests by your employer for the purpose of employment violate the Constitution?

Well, before we look at the Constitution, please allow me to first point-out that this practice turns the basic American principle of being considered innocent until proven guilty on its head. And also please allow me to point-out it's absurdity by making up my own absurdity.

What if I owned a business and made it my policy that everyday when my employees entered my place of business, they had to stip naked in front of me or one of my managers and submit to a strip search to insure that they were not bringing any kind of banned contraband onto my place of business? Would you consider this search "unwarranted" and therefore "unlawful"?


Anyway, here's the text of our 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now NOTE that in the Fourth Amendment there is NO reference to the term "criminal cases". But in the Fifth Amendment you clearly see that distinction made. (...."nor shall any person......be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".......).

So therefore the Fourth Amendment does not just apply to criminal cases. And what we have when an employer makes as a requirement for employment, the unwarranted search and seizure of your person to prove your innocence on a matter where there is no probable cause to reasonably suspect your guilt, is an unconstitutional act which violates the 4th Amendment, no less different than my absurd example above.


I hope I explained myself good enough.. :)

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. "Unreasonable" is the operative word

Who decides if a search and seizure is unreasonable?

[SoCalifer]

43. What is Reasonable?

Well, we can again look to the 4th Amendment to see if there's any clarification, and yes there is some there.

In the 4th Amendment you see it state "......and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation......"

So what we see here is the Constitution telling us that before a "Reasonable" search and/or seizure may take place; a warrant must be issued, and before a warrant can be issued, there must be evidence showing probable cause of guilt.


I hope I am not offending you in anyway Freddie Stubbs. My only intent here is to try and clearify what it is that I read when I read the Constitution, and how I place pieces of it into context after I have read all of it..... Well, most of it anyway. And after also having read most of the federalist papers.

And it seems to me that today these documents written by our founding fathers are just as radical with many people today, as they were back when they were written..

Not that I think that you think they are radical.. That's just a general statment.. :)

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Nowhere does it say that warrants are a requirement of a search

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

[SoCalifer]

47. Freddie Stubbs

Are you serious, or are you just jokingly being sarcastic? Because it says it right there in your own post:

"The right of the people to be secure...............against unreasonable searches.........shall not be violated, and no 'warrants' shall issue......."

Freddie its being very specific that it takes a warrant to search a person's person, their house, or their papers, or their other effects. And its very clear what it takes to acquire a warrant.

[FromTheLeft]

49. Trust me I hate to take this stance...

...but it is not unconstitutional for an employer to request a drug test prior to employment provided that

1) The drug test is not "manditory". And by manditory I mean that they tell you that you don't have to take it. That still means that they don't have to hire you if you don't.
2) There are other quilified candidates for the position that are will to take said drug test.

Unfortunetly the constitution does block them from requiring one, it does not block them from requesting one. Companies have the right to place whatever priority on this test that they see is fit so long as not taking one does not "preclude" you from obtaining a position in that company.

On the other hand what is unconstitutional is random drug tests once in a postition being that their is no arguement possible that they were a choice not a requirement.

[Charon]

46. Quick Sample

Which section of the Constitution defines, or addresses the U.S. Battle Flag (what ever that is)?

[SoCalifer]

48. Charon:

Signed on August 21, 1959: Pursuant to United States Code 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834; Federal Register 24 F.R. 6865: - "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides."

Why does this matter? Understand The LAW of the FLAG:

The Law of the Flag is an International Law that is recognized by every nation and is defined as:

"... a rule to the effect that a vessel is a part of the territory of the nation whose flag she flies. The term is used to designate the RIGHTS under which a ship owner, who sends his vessel into a foreign port, gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the ship master that he intends the Law of that Flag to regulate those contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." (Reference: U.S. Supreme Court: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41)

By the doctrine of four cornering the flag establishes the law of the country that it represents. For example, the embassies of foreign countries, in Washington D.C., are "four cornered" by walls or fencing, creating an "enclave." Within the boundaries of the enclave of the foreign embassy, the flag of that foreign country establishes the jurisdiction and law of that foreign country, which will be enforced by the Law of the Flag and international treaty. If you enter an embassy, you will be subject to the laws of that country, just as if you board a ship flying a foreign flag, you will be subject to the laws of that flag, enforceable by the "master of the ship," (Captain), by the law of the flag.

How does this apply to you and me? Well, when you enter into a building (like a court house), the flag being flown is putting you on notice as to which laws, rules, and regulations its governed by. And if it's the U.S. Battle Flag (with the gold fringe) instead of the U.S. Constitution Flag (without the gold fringe), then Admiralty law applies. This is how they are able to get away with such things as asset seizures without due process of law (hell, in many cases without even being charged with a crime), investigative detention, the patriot act, the war on drugs (without a constitutional amendment unlike the alcohol prohibition amendment), etc, etc.

Now you can say that this is crazy and that I am full of shat, but the facts are the facts. And if you can come up with refuting evidence on how the law is able to get away with such things as the war on drugs without a constitutional amendment and how the law can seize your property without due process of law in blatant violation of the Constitution, and many other violations -and- can show me how there's no such thing as the "laws of the flag", I am open to be corrected.

----------------------











I think its also important to understand that the flying of the U.S. Battle flag also symbolizes the fact that ever since the introduction of the "National Security Act of 1947" this country has technically been at a permanent state of war. Through covert C.I.A. actions we have been at war with some country or another since that time. Its also notable to point out that these actions are covert to no one else but U.S. citizens; since obviously its not covert to the people who are getting killed, nor is it covert to people like the K.G.B. Another notable point is: Its only been against poor countries without the capacity to defend themselves from us since we don't attack countries that can hurt us back.


Here's a list of examples off the top of my head:

- IRAN: 1953 Covert CIA operations forms and funds SAVAK (secrete Iranian police terrorist/death squads) and overthrows democratically elected premier Mohammed Mosaddeq and installs Shah as a Washington puppet tyrant dictator after Mosaddeq nationalized Iranian oil and saying that Iranian wealth belongs to Iranians and not to western foreigners. The Iotola Khomeni and the insurgents of the Shiites and anti-Americanism is a direct consequence of this C.I.A. action. Also the subsequent U.S. backing of Saddam Hussein and the eight year war against Iran that followed is what's responsible for all the hundreds of thousands of people who died in that war. All because of oil interests didn't like the idea that Iran thinks that Iranian oil belongs to Iranians.

- GUATEMALA: 1954 Covert CIA operations bomb the capital and forms and funds terrorist death squads who overthrow democratically elected President Arbenz after Arbenz nationalized Guatemala land (even land owned by him and his family) and giving it to Guatemala peasants; saying that its not right that 70% of the land is owned by 3% of the land owners. Since much of this land belonged to Rockefeller owned United Fruit Company; the U.S., intent on keeping Guatemala a banana republic, would not let this overthrow of U.S. hegemony stand.

- LEBANON: 1958 Troops, Naval/U.S. Marine occupation against rebels.

- VIETNAM: 1960-75

- LAOS: 1961 Covert/Military buildup during guerrilla war.

- CUBA: 1961 Covert CIA operation "bay of pigs" to overthrow Fidel Castro invasion fails.

- INDONESIA: 1965 Covert CIA assisted Indonesia army coup kills one million-plus. CIA provides assassination lists to military, plus weapons.

- DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: 1965-66 Troops, bombing/U.S. Marines land during election campaign.

- GUATEMALA: 1966-67 Covert Green Berets intervene against Guatemalans rebelling against U.S. puppet/tyrant leader.

- LAOS: 1971-73 Command operation, bombing/U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

- CHILE: 1973 Covert CIA operation funds and backs coup; ousts democratically elected President Salvador Allende and installs a brutal military dictatorship lead by General Augusto Pinochet after President Allende nationalizes Chile's copper mines from foreigners.

- EL SALVADOR

- NICARAGUA

- HONDURAS

- LEBANON (again)

- GRENADA

- LIBYA

- PANAMA

[suffragette]

50. We need to contact our Senators and urge them to oppose this

They fast tracked this bill through the House and it could be voted on by the Senate as early as next week by having it attached to tsunami relief or funding for Iraq.

[Just Me]

51. I've already provided mine with advanced notice.

They should be well-armed and ready to tear this bill (and those who had the freakin' gull to sponsor it) apart!!!

[suffragette]

52. kick for action

:kick: