Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 "NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES" (Required)

Government Printing Office ^ | 1986 | US Congress

[xzins]

"(3) NOTICE TO CONGRESS BEFORE IMPLEMENTING CHANGES.—

"(A) IN GENERAL.—The President may not implement any change under paragraph (1) unless at least—

"(i) 60 days,

"(ii) one year, in the case of a major change described in subparagraph (D)(iii), or

"(iii) two years, in the case of a major change described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (D), before the date of implementation of the change, the President has prepared and transmitted to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report setting forth the proposed change. If the President proposes to make any change regarding social security account number cards, the President shall transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Finance of the Senate a written report setting forth the proposed change. The President promptly shall cause to have printed in the Federal Register the substance of any major change (described in subparagraph (D)) proposed and reported to Congress.

"(B) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—In any report under subparagraph (A) the President shall include recommendations for the establishment of civil and criminal sanctions for unauthorized use or disclosure of the information or identifiers contained in such system.

"(C) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF MAJOR CHANGES.—

"(i) HEARINGS AND REVIEW.—The Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate shall cause to have printed in the Congressional Record the substance of any major change described in subparagraph (D), shall hold hearings respecting the feasibility and desirability of implementing such a change, and, within the two year period before implementation, shall report to their respective Houses findings on whether or not such a change should be implemented.

"(ii) CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.—No major change may be implemented unless the Congress specifically provides, in an appropriations or other Act, for funds for implementation of the change.

"(D) MAJOR CHANGES REQUIRING TWO YEARS NOTICE AND CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.—As used in this paragraph, the term 'major change' means a change which would—

"(i) require an individual to present a new card or other document (designed specifically for use for this purpose) at the time of hiring, recruitment, or referral,

"(ii) provide for a telephone verification system under which an employer, recruiter, or referrer must transmit to a Federal official information concerning the immigration status of prospective employees and the official transmits to the person, and the person must record, a verification code, or

"(iii) require any change in any card used for accounting purposes under the Social Security Act, 42 USC 301 note. including any change requiring that the only social security account number cards which may be presented in order to comply with subsection (bXlXCXi) are such cards as are in a counterfeit-resistant form consistent with the second sentence of section 205(cX2XD) of the Social ecurity Act. 42 use 405.

,; "(E) GENERAL REVENUE FUNDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY CARD CHANGES.—Any costs incurred in developing and implementing any change described in subparagraph (D) (iii)for purposes of this subsection shall not be paid for out of any trust fund established under established under the Social Security Act.

[JRandomFreeper]

Thank you. I thought it was a District Court.

/johnny

[xzins]

So, how does Congress force it to the Supremes?

[scouter]

Laws?! We don’t need no steenkin’ laws!

[Ray76]

Correction: DC District Court

https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/house-v-burwell-d-d-c-complaint-filed.pdf

[xzins]

I have trouble trusting anyone in DC. What if we find out he informed Congress 2 years ago of the exact changes he announced the other night?

Besides it meaning that they are all lying cheating scum, it also means that we live in a tyrannical illusion.

[Ray76]

You were right, I was mistaken.

[JRandomFreeper]

I don't see that they do without passing legislation and getting it through the senate and signed by the president.

The States, on the other hand, Constitutionally have a right to go directly to the Supremes.

They can't do it over a speech. It would have to be an unlawful EO, or other unlawful direction to the executive branch by the President.

/johnny

[xzins]

You’re supposed to tell me, not yourself. :>)

[xzins]

I agree that conflicts with states go to the Supremes. Don’t they have original jurisdiction on such things?

[JRandomFreeper]

I was going by memory. I had a 50-50 shot. ;)

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

And native nations (or whatever they are called today) if I recall.

/johnny

[xzins]

Now I’ve got to go read it again.

[JRandomFreeper]

Wouldn't hurt a few in congress to join you in your reading.

/johnny

[xzins]

If I read it, think they’ll vote for me?

:>)

[Iron Munro]

Then sue the Obamstard there!

Don't be in a rush.

Congress had to go on break.

Maybe after this break

Or the next break.

Or after Christmas.

Or sometime next year.

Or the year after Obama is out of the White House.

After all - they just filed the Obamacare lawsuit and that became law 4½ years ago.

[JRandomFreeper]

Too conservative.

/johnny

[Windflier]

...begs the question: Does congress actually know the law?

I seriously doubt it.

No one person can know every bit of federal law. There's just too damn much of it. The individual pages would probably span the entire continent by now.

I'm sure most here would agree, that the next few congresses should stop legislating entirely, and do nothing but abolish laws on the books. Three or four sessions of Congress just might reduce the pile to a sane and manageable level.

[xzins]

On track again:

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

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.

The underlined appears to be the relevant section.

[Pride in the USA]

ping!

[Know et al]

I agree. I don't think Obama would go to the trouble to inform congress of anything he was going to do. I don't think he even cares about following the rules.

You are correct. We are as close to tyranny as this country has ever been.