Posted on 02/09/2005 11:21:04 PM PST by ovrtaxt
Significantly, it also says courts are prohibited from reviewing the secretary's decision.
That's interesting. Can the legislature legislatate the Judiciary out of the review process?
"Taking judicial review away is quite dramatic," he told WND. "The secretary, under a strict reading, could waive any law and conceivably detain people, wiretap -- the list would go on and on of the laws that could be waived."
Harper said he objects to the bill being run through so quickly, which limits participation in the process to only the most aggressive players in Congress.
That's kind of freaky. While I agree with the intent of this law, these kinds of issues need to be amended first. Security isn't worth crap without liberty.
"That's interesting. Can the legislature legislatate the Judiciary out of the review process?"
I believe they can. They can even curtail the USSC.
I never knew that. They need to start putting that clause in all these referenda that activist Judges are overturning.
Equal and separate powers.
Yes, the Congress can determine what it allows the courts to rule upon.
It's just that we never see that done in practice.
Doesn't sound to me like a road block to illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses. This is the redress of that issue?
Ug... What else is in this sucker?
BTTT for later digestion
>>>
Environmental laws have been the project's chief roadblock
<<<
This must end NOW...
I AM for writing good legislation that serves the Pubic and can withstand challenge. I am NOT for using the 'slow, deliberative process' alluded to above as a pretext for delaying action on critical matters such as this. The problem has been evident for a number of years and I personally find it a step too far to believe that good, sound legislation to deal with it is not on the shelf awaiting Congressional action.
I always thought the courts had a Constitutional authority to review and rule on any aspect of law that was brought before them. The authority, I thought, came from the Constitution itself, not Congress.
So it begs the question, why don't we see this done more often? We have political wussies in office for the most part, I guess. They can pass a popular law, and when a court overturns it, they can point to the judge and absolve themselves of responsibility.
I have honestly never heard of this limitation on the courts before.
I bet you never dreamed growing up where crooked, power-tripping ICEHOLES ended up in life, did you?
Now, we have to be productive members of society AND battle these filthy critters that we allow to serve us...
It's certainly not the solution to illegal activity at the border. But it does fix the driver's license issue. The granting of those licenses are for documented individuals only.
The legality of those documents remains a state issue.
I always thought the courts had a Constitutional authority to review and rule on any aspect of law that was brought before them. The authority, I thought, came from the Constitution itself, not Congress.
As I understand it, you are technically correct. However Congress can prevent the federal courts from ever allowing a lawsuit over their laws to be brought before the judges.
I don't have the specific place in the Constitution, though, without a bit of research again.
It has been used before, but not for a while. Using it now would meet much resistance from citizens, though.
In fact, just recently, legislation was proposed to stip all inferiour courts of any jurisdiction pertaining to either flag burning or the Pledge of Allegiance (I forget which). However, that legislation didn't pass, and a great many here thought it was silly.
That notwithstanding, Congress could put the 9th Circuit Court on notice quite readily (if they so chose to) - and there aint nothing the Supreme Court could do about it.
Unless it was incorporated into a referendum.
Actually I posted a hypothesis in 2000, that stated this. It is my fear that by placing the wrong individual into office, that many are willing to back as much as Clinton's spinners did him no matter what, that we might actually destroy for all intents and purposes, a viable conservative movement in the United States.
Today we have people who call themselves conservatives but are not distressed that our nation's borders are wide open, that our Constition is ignored, that our federal budget is going up at a tremendous rate, that the DOE is actually getting more money than every before despite what it has done with it, that a one theater military readiness is preferable, that our nuclear stockpile be reduced by two thirds...
Oh well. This is one time when I wish like hell I had been wrong.
Well, if that is true, that is good.
Cool. Now THAT'S a nuclear option!
Not that this current group of sissies would ever do it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.