Replies

Senator Allen had been posed to respond to the issues I am listing but was unseated in the election. I passed the "same" issues along to Senator Jim Webb and I among many interested groups have been amazed by his "lack" of response. Many of the requests were simple for example we asked the Congressional reference limiting Government Agencies from requiring everyone to have a security clearance. We believe it was Regan or may-be Clinton who first issued an executive order. This was done to save the thirty thousand it cost to perform a security clearance along with the six to eight yearly cost to maintain it. Many agencies require everyone to have one. In my old agency all security items were handled at headquarters by a special team, but all the rest of us had to have a clearance.

But the biggest thing is that the Senator has not responded to is the situation dealing with a Government office in Virginia, I am a disabled veteran and I found three of a particular agency Virginia offices where I was assigned were not in compliance with Government Regulations governing the handicap. I sadly found out the agency was more intent on covering up the matter than correcting it. When I finally got an outside agency (US Access Board) to evaluate the facility they agreed the facility was not in compliance. But unbelievable the agency did and has not corrected the facilities. I have repeatedly requested Senator Webb to just write asking if they were not in compliance to comply with the required regulations. As of today he has not and the Agency is not in compliance, they can say what they want but Allen a Republican was willing to go to bat for a Veteran and the handicap.

" I am a disabled veteran and I found three of a particular agency Virginia offices where I was assigned were not in compliance with Government Regulations governing the handicap. I sadly found out the agency was more intent on covering up the matter than correcting it. When I finally got an outside agency (US Access Board) to evaluate the facility they agreed the facility was not in compliance...

...I have repeatedly requested Senator Webb to just write asking if they were not in compliance to comply with the required regulations. As of today he has not and the Agency is not in compliance..."

It's ironic and sad that Senator Jim Webb, (Virginia, D) a highly decorated Viet Nam Veteran, ex-Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan is ignoring the finding of the agency inspecting the building, and is unwilling to help you.

Yet now ex-Senator George Allen (Virginia, R) a lawyer and *not* a Veteran, was not only willing to listen, but Senator Allen also somehow managed to find the time to help while he was still in office.

Now that Democratic Senator Webb is in office, perhaps his greater priority lies in political campaigns, rather than in doing the job he was elected to do, the job of serving his constituents.

Senator Webb's personal and political aspirations may simply be keeping him too busy to be interested in disabled Veterans.

I am a disabled veteran and I found three of a particular agency Virginia offices where I was assigned were not in compliance with Government Regulations governing the handicap.

You sail past the constitutional issues. Can the federal government require the states to comply with acts such as the ADA? Constitutionally, no. There is no way to stretch the Commerce Clause (the usual basis for placing burdens on private employers) to cover the sovereign state governments.

The only way to coerce the states is through the spending powers. And even there, it is only coercion; the states can't be forced to go along.

See, for example, Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (201) " We decide here whether employees of the State of Alabama may recover money damages by reason of the State’s failure to comply with the provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 330, 42 U.S.C. § 12111—12117.1 We hold that such suits are barred by the Eleventh Amendment."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1240.ZO.html

"We have recognized, however, that Congress may abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and “act[s] pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.” 528 U.S., at 73. The first of these requirements is not in dispute here. See 42 U.S.C. § 12202 (“A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in [a] Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter”). The question, then, is whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority by subjecting the States to suits in federal court for money damages under the ADA.

"Congress may not, of course, base its abrogation of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity upon the powers enumerated in Article I. See Kimel, supra, at 79 (“Under our firmly established precedent then, if the [Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967] rests solely on Congress’ Article I commerce power, the private petitioners in today’s cases cannot maintain their suits against their state employers”); Seminole Tribe, supra, at 72—73 (“The Eleventh Amendment restricts the judicial power under Article III, and Article I cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction”); College Savings Bank, supra, at 672; Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 636 (1999); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 730—733 (1999). In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), however, we held that “the Eleventh Amendment, and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies, are necessarily limited by the enforcement provisions of §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 456 (internal citation omitted). As a result, we concluded, Congress may subject nonconsenting States to suit in federal court when it does so pursuant to a valid exercise of its §5 power. See ibid. Our cases have adhered to this proposition. See, e.g., Kimel, supra, at 80. Accordingly, the ADA can apply to the States only to the extent that the statute is appropriate §5 legislation.3"