REAL ID Act of 2005 - am I reading this right?

[Gabu]

So a few weeks ago, H.R.418, or the REAL ID Act of 2005, was introduced to the House.  It looks fairly inconspicuous, except for one section that I noted, which is Section 102, or, specifically, this bit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Am I reading this incorrectly, or is this basically saying that the Secretary of Homeland Security can act as a dictator, ignoring any and all laws, as long as he or she thinks that what's being done is a good idea?  Furthermore, does it also say that nobody can question what the secretary is doing in a court of law?

I recognize that this is referring to a fairly specific topic on which the secretary is working, but, uh, isn't it kind of a bad precedent to set to allow an official to just ignore every single law in existence and to make it impossible to stop this person from doing something?

[Peter]

Every few years Congress tries to tie on these stupid "no judicial review" provisions to bills that it knows are probably flat out unconstitutional. And every time the Supreme Court says that it cannot totally exempt entire laws or executive actions from judicial review.

Its an incredibly bad precedent, and the judiciary rarely let these sort of things stand. Though it does say that the Congress can make "exemptions" to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (though for the most part the Court simply ignores this), this does not mean it can make exemptions to the original jurisdiction of the lower courts, which it cannot, though it tries.

[David S]

Seems to me that it would give the Secretary the power to confiscate private land for the construction of roads or barriers. Government already has that power under eminent domain. But the new law seems to prevent the victim from seeking legal redress if the government offers less than fair compensation for the land taken.

Presumably the Secretary might seize land near a border to erect barriers, but the law gives him sole discretion, so he could grab land in the middle of Nebraska and claim that it was needed too.

This act would give the Secretary enormous power so we have to put our faith in him to act properly. In my estimation it would be far better to heed Thomas Jeffersons advice; "In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution. "

The Democrats and Republicans don't seem to give a damn about the constitution so they frequently propose laws like this. That's why my avatar is neither red or blue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, that bill is totally bizarre.
How can a bill declare itself not subject to reveiw by courts?
Those are a seperate branch of government, and can only be neutralized by a constitutional amendment.

[A18]

Like this:

Article III, Section 2.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[David S]

Like this:

Article III, Section 2.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

That section of the constitution may allow congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but H.R. 418 would prevent any court from hearing a case. As I read it it would give  an unelected official the power to violate any law if, in his sole discretion, it was necessary to ensure the expeditious constructions of roads and barriers.

Potentially he could confiscate your home and the land it is built on, in the interest of "constructing roads and barriers." He could do so without offering fair compensation and you would have no legal recourse. Does that not disturb you?

BTW it seems the house has already passed this bill.

[David S]

BTW2 You can see how your congressman voted on this issue at http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/
Click on vote tally.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW2 You can see how your congressman voted on this issue at http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/
Click on vote tally.

It's sad that 42 Democrats voted yes.

[Alcon]

I'd encourage everyone who has a congressman who voted for it to mail a letter with angry fonts.

Here is the list of the non-party voters:

Democrats Voting Yea
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Bean, Melissa (IL-8)
Berry, Marion (AR-1)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-2)
Boren, Dan (OK-2)
Boucher, Rick (VA-9)
Boyd, Allen (FL-2)
Butterfield, GK (NC-1)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Case, Ed (HI-2)
Chandler, Ben (KY-6)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Costello (IL-12)
Cramer, Bud (AL-5)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Davis, Artur (AL-7)
Davis, Jim (FL-11)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-4)
DeFazio, Peter (OR-4)
Edwards, Chet (TX-17)
Ford, Harold Jr. (TN-9)
Gordon, Bart (TN-6)
Herseth, Stephanie (SD-1)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Hooley, Darlene (OR-5)
Kanjorski, Paul (PA-11)
Lipinski, Daniel (IL-3)
Marshall, Jim (GA-3)
Matheson, Jim (UT-2)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-7)
McNulty, Michael (NY-21)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-3)
Peterson, Collin (MN-7)
Ryan, Tim (OH-17)
Salazar, John (CO-3)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Skelton, Ike (MO-4)
Strickland, Ted (OH-6)
Tanner, John (TN-8)
Taylor, Gene (MS-4)

Republicans Voting Nay
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (FL-21)
Diaz-Balart, Mario (FL-25)
Paul, Ron (TX-14)
Pombo, Richard (CA-11)
Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)
Smith, Chris (NJ-4)
Wilson, Heather (NM-1)
Young, Don (AK-1)

Democrats Not Voting
Eshoo, Anna (CA-14)
Green, Gene (TX-19)
Hinchey, Maurice (NY-22)
Hinojosa, Rubén (TX-15)
Honda, Mike (CA-15)
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)
Stupak, Bart (MI-1)

Republicans Not Voting
Bartlett, Roscoe (MD-6)
Carter, John (TX-31)
Feeney, Tom (FL-24)
Ferguson, Michael (NJ-7)

Idiots
Santorum, Rick (PA-666)

[Jake]

Glad to see Sherwood voted the way I told him to

[A18]

Like this:

Article III, Section 2.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

That section of the constitution may allow congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but H.R. 418 would prevent any court from hearing a case.

It is well understood that Congress can decide which cases the lower courts are allowed to hear.

The proper check on federal power is nullification by the states.

[David S]

Like this:

Article III, Section 2.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

That section of the constitution may allow congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but H.R. 418 would prevent any court from hearing a case.

It is well understood that Congress can decide which cases the lower courts are allowed to hear.

Where does it say that, aside from the Philipopedia? 

In my estimation if government seized your property without compensation, as I hyphothetized above, you should be able to sue them for just compensation. How would state nulification help you?

[A18]

Congress can abolish the lower courts if they want. They constitute the entire structure of the federal judiciary. How in the world would they not be able to define their jurisdiction?

State nullification helps me if my property is in that state.

[David S]

Congress can abolish the lower courts if they want. They constitute the entire structure of the federal judiciary. How in the world would they not be able to define their jurisdiction?

State nullification helps me if my property is in that state.

OK Government just seized your home. Now what do you do? What is the procedure?

[Smash255]

When is this pile of crap going to the senate for a vote?

[A18]

Congress can abolish the lower courts if they want. They constitute the entire structure of the federal judiciary. How in the world would they not be able to define their jurisdiction?

State nullification helps me if my property is in that state.

OK Government just seized your home. Now what do you do? What is the procedure?

Get the state to declare civil war, of course.

[David S]

Congress can abolish the lower courts if they want. They constitute the entire structure of the federal judiciary. How in the world would they not be able to define their jurisdiction?

State nullification helps me if my property is in that state.

OK Government just seized your home. Now what do you do? What is the procedure?

Get the state to declare civil war, of course.

How about a more realistic although not as dramatic solution.
You hire a lawyer and sue the pants off em. Of course you cannot do that under the terms of  H.R. 418. As I read the bill the government could do whatever the secretary wanted with impunity. Sounds dangerous to me.

[Peter]

Get the state to declare civil war, of course.

Do you know anything about Viscount Palmerston, Philip?

I think you'd like his style.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I knew that there was some major fascist vote that I forgot about, it's hard to keep all of the gross fascism of the last few years straight.

[NDN]

Remember people, the government knows what's best for you and everyone else at all times. Do NOT question it, or try to get uppity activist judges to do so either. Don't be selfish and try to get compensation if it takes your possessions or inconveniences you either. We live in the freest country on earth. If you disagree, you're obviously with the terrorists.

[NDN]

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Who cares? The choices are either a Final War to remove the problem of Islam forever or putting in security measures to reduce the risk of terror levels to an "acceptable level" for the longterm and not doing anytihng.

[NDN]

Who cares? The choices are either a Final War to remove the problem of Islam forever or putting in security measures to reduce the risk of terror levels to an "acceptable level" for the longterm and not doing anytihng.

You can fight Islamism and Terrorism without pissing on our legal protections and enacting a police state. Let's get real, terrorism kills less people than lightning or natural disasters. Most of the damage is psychological -- that's why it's called Terrorism.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

You can fight Islamism and Terrorism without pissing on our legal protections and enacting a police state. Let's get real, terrorism kills less people than lightning or natural disasters. Most of the damage is psychological -- that's why it's called Terrorism.

You do realize that for that strategy to work we'd have to dump Israel so its politically impossible. Responding in kind for any atrocities done on US soil sells better to the US electorate. Yes this is insane but I don't wish things were this way... I just work within the realities.

[NDN]

You can fight Islamism and Terrorism without pissing on our legal protections and enacting a police state. Let's get real, terrorism kills less people than lightning or natural disasters. Most of the damage is psychological -- that's why it's called Terrorism.

You do realize that for that strategy to work we'd have to dump Israel so its politically impossible. Responding in kind for any atrocities done on US soil sells better to the US electorate. Yes this is insane but I don't wish things were this way... I just work within the realities.

You respond in kind by invading, sanctioning or at least negotiating with the country harboring said terrorists. Giving the government the authority to spy or seize your assets without probable cause is not "responding in kind," it's authoritarianism which in itself is terrifying. I don't care how many votes it buys you, if you do that you've sold us all out. This is one issue which I've been very critical of the Democrats on, including the man I'm supporting now for President.