Slashdot Mirror

That remains to be seen. The bill only tells the FAA to do "something" and leaves it pretty vague: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

1) $5 fee is a tax and he cannot create his own taxes = needs act of Congress.

Who the fuck do you think passed the

2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which landed on Trumpâ(TM)s desk Tuesday

Trump cannot waive laws, he needs to go ask Congress for that.

Did he even need to ask, or did they throw that bit in for free and he's merely acceded to them?

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT

I think you'll find that sec. 336 has been superceded by SEC. 1092 of the more recent act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

That's another addition to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 like the drone registration requirement.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

SEC. 1630B. PROHIBITION ON USE OF SOFTWARE PLATFORMS DEVELOPED BY KASPERSKY LAB.

(a) Prohibition.-No department, agency, organization, or other element of the Department of Defense may use, whether directly or through work with or on behalf of another organization or element of the Department or another department or agency of the United States Government, any software platform developed, in whole or in part, by Kaspersky Lab or any entity of which Kaspersky Lab has a majority ownership.

(b) Severance Of Network Connections.-The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that any network connection between a department, agency, organization, or other element of the Department of Defense and a department or agency of the United States Government that is using or hosting on its networks a software platform described in subsection (a) is immediately severed.

(c) Effective Date.-This section shall take effect on October 1, 2018.

That's more a RNC/McCain thing than a Trump one. It's not like Trump could veto the NDAA.

http://www.thedrive.com/aerial...

The controversial drone policy introduced by the Federal Aviation Administration in 2015, requiring recreational drone users to registers their UAVs, was constitutionally overturned in May of this year, but it may end up being enforced again next year by being included in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act of 2018.

According to Bloomberg, both the House and Senate agree on slipping the unmanned aerial vehicle registry into the defense bill, as demand for regulation in the drone industry is at an all-time high. Most recently, the White House expanded drone-testing regulations to presumably push toward standardizing nationwide UAV delivery. The current administration may deem a nationwide hobby-drone registration as a necessary first step toward that.

The previous policy was overturned

http://www.thedrive.com/aerial...

In 2015, the FAA officially announced that all owners of drones heavier than 250 grams (which is about as light as a cup of water) must be registered as "drone operators" in a national database. This, of course, startled some, as it seemed this regulation could mark the beginning of the end for freedom of use regarding hobby drones. Others felt it was a fair deal in the right direction, as we reported on last year. However, in a twist of turns, the District of Columbia circuit court of appeals overturned this legislation on Friday, May 19th, as its compatibility with a previous FAA ruling from 2012 is far from symbiotic.

The 2012 "FAA Modernization and Reform Act" rules that the FAA has no right to "promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft", and as Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh sees it, the 2015 ruling clearly interferes with this established law. He adds, "Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft." Essentially, recreational drone users have been exempted from the aforementioned registry, which according to Popular Science, over 800,000 people have joined since 2015. This is something we at The Drive keep a close eye on, and an issue we regularly report on.

So Congress put a paragraph into the 2018 NDAA to restore registration

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington overturned the FAA drone registration system in May, finding that earlier legislation passed in 2012 didn't give the agency legal authority for it. A one-paragraph addition to the defense bill said that the registration system "shall be restored" as soon as the legislation becomes law.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

(d) Restoration Of Rules For Registration And Marking Of Unmanned Aircraft.-The rules adopted by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the matter of registration and marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft (FAA-2015-7396; published on December 16, 2015) that were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Taylor v. Huerta (No. 15-1495; decided on May 19, 2017) shall be restored to effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

Why would they be able to speak English? It is not the official language. In fact, there is no official language in the US. There is a bill, but no law for now: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

I've got no dog in this fight. I'm prepared to give Trump the benefit of the doubt however I just think it's sad that Billary and Trump were the best options the two party system could produce. You can get all upset and offended and throw out your pointless little jibes at me or you can see that I am making a observation based in valid concerns and try to have a reasoned discussion.

We know that Hillary bought the Democrat nomination (as per Brazil), but I don't know how Trump got the Republican nomination. As a conservative, he wasn't in my top 3 choices.

There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

I know the president can't pass the laws he proposes, I wasn't suggesting that he does. There is nothing preventing him proposing legislation to fix it. Just saying repeal and replace is not leading, it's outsourcing the problem and complaining that no-one else is doing anything about it.

In other words he should put up or shut up.

In other words you called me out for stating something you already knew and believe, just using different words (and furthermore accuse me of whining).

The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system.

Why?

Trump is out of touch with the middle class. As a business leader, I think he'd look out for what's best for his companies instead of what's best for Americans.

I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage.

However, it's not all broken. A bunch of it looks like corporate welfare to the insurance companies for a start. So why not pick out the broken bits and fix that first. Asking to chuck it out and then start again is about as stupid as a proposal as I have ever heard.

I always thought that repeal and replace was the wrong order. We first need a viable alternative, then we can dismantle ObamaCare.

I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.

Then you be the leader. Figure out what is wrong and propose changes in H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is literally maybe an afternoon to read and understand, I just did and can already see the weak points. Write to the president and propose the changes yourself. Or are you just looking for a reason to whine and complain?

Citizenship 101.

I have a full-time job and look over my kids while my wife is at her part-time job; I don't have the luxury of 4 hours to digest legalese. I have heard some of the weak points, such as millions of people will lose eligibility.

It's a bit much to expect you to open your mouth without spin, but c'est la vie.

You really hurt my feelings with that. I think I might go to the doctor and get them checked, for free.

I've got no dog in this fight. I'm prepared to give Trump the benefit of the doubt however I just think it's sad that Billary and Trump were the best options the two party system could produce. You can get all upset and offended and throw out your pointless little jibes at me or you can see that I am making a observation based in valid concerns and try to have a reasoned discussion.

There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

I know the president can't pass the laws he proposes, I wasn't suggesting that he does. There is nothing preventing him proposing legislation to fix it. Just saying repeal and replace is not leading, it's outsourcing the problem and complaining that no-one else is doing anything about it.

In other words he should put up or shut up.

The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system.

Why?

I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage.

However, it's not all broken. A bunch of it looks like corporate welfare to the insurance companies for a start. So why not pick out the broken bits and fix that first. Asking to chuck it out and then start again is about as stupid as a proposal as I have ever heard.

I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.

Then you be the leader. Figure out what is wrong and propose changes in H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is literally maybe an afternoon to read and understand, I just did and can already see the weak points. Write to the president and propose the changes yourself. Or are you just looking for a reason to whine and complain?

Citizenship 101.

There's nothing to "get away with" -- Congress explicitly authorized the increase in the FY 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act:

SEC. 543. Notwithstanding the numerical limitation set forth
in section 214(g)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B)), the Secretary of Homeland Security, after
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and upon the determina-
tion that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied
in fiscal year 2017 with United States workers who are willing,
qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor,
may increase the total number of aliens who may receive a visa
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) in such fiscal year above such limitation by
not more than the highest number of H–2B nonimmigrants who
participated in the H–2B returning worker program in any fiscal
year in which returning workers were exempt from such numerical
limitation.

Look it up. Greatest information tool ever known at your fingertips, and you can't even be bothered to inform yourself. Yet you can manage to spin up a hypothetical that has been addressed ever since "dinosaur media" political advertising was similarly regulated.

Hint: those aren't political ads, those are issue ads.

I said it was illegal to transfer machine guns. it is illegal to posses a machine gun manufactured after 1986 therefore they are effectively banned.

The DREAM Act was first introduced in Congress in

You mean 2001. And nope, it has passed several times. The impediment was the filibuster, not a majority in Congress.

You know, an entirely non-Constitutional restriction by the Senate, on itself, not actual binding law.

ignores *multiple* votes in Congress that said "no we're not going to do that", including two such votes while his own party controlled Congress and the Presidency.

I notice you saying this sort of thing a lot, but Congress *NEVER* voted "not to do that" at any time. You're confusing a failure to pass a law with necessitating the opposite. That is an error of logic, and a falsehood on your part. I suggest you desist.

Now certainly Congress could vote to forbid such action. They could even vote to impeach the President.

They made no such vote. Never. Not once. They let Obama do it, and their only action? A token gesture that meant nothing since the USCIS was established by them, as a self-funding entity, which meant they never appropriated funding for it anyway. Now the states that filed a lawsuit are another matter, but WAIT, several states have sued over the rescinding.

Net result? LITIGATION. Yay?

Sorry, but either way, Congress has dropped the ball, and no, the Trump administration did not improve the situation. They just punted it. And tried to get idiots like you to think it was a Hail Mary touchdown.

Title II: Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures - Family Movie Act of 2005 - (Sec. 202) Creates an exemption from copyright infringement for: (1) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing from an authorized copy of the motion picture; or (2) the creation or provision of technology that enables such editing, is designed and marketed for such use, creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Nope, the doctor, the practice, and the manufacturer have complete immunity to lawsuits.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

That is illegal in the case of vaccines. By federal law no manufacturer of any vaccine has any liability for death or damage caused by the product.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

No fucking idiot. Yes you are a fucking idiot for not even realizing it is impossible for the legislative branch to prevent the executive from sharing information for national defense. Secondly you are a fucking idiot and the editor for not even bothering to go see what it actually does. The bill is trying to cut funding to a russia/us cyber security group in the future, that doesn't even exist. It would be unconstitutional from the legislative branch to prevent executive from sharing information for national defense. Better summary directly from politicians http://dearcolleague.us/2017/0... and the text is here . https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

The bill is trying to cut funding to a russia/us cyber security group in the future, that doesn't even exist. It would be unconstitutional from the legislative branch to prevent executive from sharing information for national defense. Better summary directly from politicians http://dearcolleague.us/2017/0... and the text is here . https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
You would have seen my comment before but slashdot has modslapped me twice in 6 months.

The bill is trying to cut funding to a russia/us cyber security group in the future, that doesn't even exist. It would be unconstitutional from the legislative branch to prevent executive from sharing information for national defense. Better summary directly from politicians http://dearcolleague.us/2017/0... and the text https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Since the Paris deal was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation, it is not a legally binding treaty, only a verbal agreement by Obama.

The Paris Agreement was adopted as part of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), which IS a treaty the U.S. adopted in 1992.

Most of the legally binding aspects of the Paris accord, which include stuff like ongoing monitoring of climate change, reports to the international organization, etc. were part of that original treaty.

Where you're sort of right is that just about all the rest of the Paris agreement was set VOLUNTARILY by each country, including specific actions to mitigate emissions, goal levels for each country, etc. While it would be against the spirit of the Paris agreement, there's absolutely nothing in that agreement that prevents the U.S. from unilaterally lowering its own goals (which the U.S. set itself).

There is disagreement on this point, but a number of U.S. officials who actually were involved with the drafting and negotiation of the original Paris agreement have gone on the record to state the U.S. could "backslide" on its goals. They say that specific language was originally considered that would prevent "backsliding," but it was removed from the final version of the agreement. Obviously there would likely be diplomatic backlash if the U.S. lowers its goals, but not likely worse than what it will experience by backing out entirely.

Which makes Trump's claims all the more mystifying. Especially about his claims that maybe the U.S. could "get a better deal." The U.S. DETERMINED the "deal." It could change its own terms. About the only thing required by the deal that the U.S. would be legally obligated to in the future would be ongoing monitoring and reports on emissions, which (as I said) was basically already part of the original Senate-approved treaty in 1992.

The ONLY reason to withdraw completely is to attempt to send a message that climate change isn't real and thus the entire exercise of the agreement is invalid. But all the rhetoric about "getting a better deal" is complete and utter balderdash.

Yeah, the whole epi-pen thing is blatant rent-seeking. Get your product legally required, get alternatives stuck in regulatory and patent limbo, jack up the price and rake in the bucks.

Yes they are... but there is a feeble effort being made to change that...

I've been really angry the last couple weeks about this rule being overturned, and wanted to see for myself what exactly congress did. I know its rare but sometimes a story circulated on the internet is missing a detail or two. I went to the source and found out this rule had only been in effect since December 2nd, 2016. I am totally in favor of this kind of privacy protection for consumers, but if its such a big deal why did it come so late in Obama's administration? All the headlines would have us believe we've had these protections for years. Also, were there other protections in place before December 2nd that remain in effect now?

You will have to wait tho, as there are currently real commissions authorized by congress in session.

Cough

Forensic Science and Standards Act of 2016

NIST and the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall establish a National Commission on Forensic Science to advise the agencies participating in the unified federal research strategy and review recommendations on standards development in forensic science.

Good enough?

Did you not comprehend what I said?

Schumer voted. It's a recorded vote. In the Senate record.

McConnell did not call a vote on Garland. Thus no respect for him, as he refused to vote. On the Record.

That is not what the bill does (read it here). [...]Nothing to see here.

What can be seen is “(5) The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated." In words, that is One Million Dollars, or, with overheads, maybe around 5 qualified employees. How much vetting of science and handling of NDAs do you think 5 people can do? Assuming you get someone qualified for such a mind-numbing job...

That is not what the bill does (read it here). It is actually refreshingly concise and readable for a federal bill.

In fact, the bill specifically does not require disclosure of personally-identifiable confidential information and allows that kind of information to be redacted. While there is a provision on allowing people who sign a NDA via a yet-to-be-developed EPA process to gain access to redacted data, the bill also clarifies that it does not and is not intended to supersede nondiscretionary statutory requirements (i.e. even the NDA process it describes cannot circumvent HIPAA privacy protections).

The EPA can use "Common Science", reports from private parties, and medical research, but only if sufficient data is provided that the conclusions of the reports can be independently verified. Note that without this information, even the EPA cannot validate the conclusions of the reports it was using. The problem, therefore, is that without some kind of requirement like this, who and what EPA chooses to use as the basis for decision making is incredibly discretionary.

There is nothing inherently wrong in providing an agency discretion, but this bill can be seen as blowback against EPA's efforts to brand itself as a science-based regulator, despite an incredible lack of scientific rigor within the agency. It is common to run into the sentiment that "X is too urgent/important to wait for the science to catch up" or "While we may lack the data/resource to collect the data to prove it scientifically, I know X is true". That would be perfectly understandable except you cannot run the agency on that level of discretion and simultaneously claim to be a science-based regulator with any expectation of credibility and legitimacy.

They claim to be scientific. They're being held to a fundamentally basic standard of science. If they don't want to be held to basic standards of science, don't claim to be a science-based regulator. Nothing to see here.

This really leans more towards "the rich get richer" because they continue to hoard their money as rather than their tax dollars working towards the welfare of all people for basic needs

People say this yet they ignore, or even outright oppose, radical tax reform such as House Bill 25 where consumption is taxed rather than income, and since the rich obviously consume far more they'll be putting more much into the system than the working class.

Regardless I don't ever expect any real tax reform in the US; the current system has been in place for over a hundred years now and it's a gold mine for special interests because of its absurd complexity.

From https://www.congress.gov/congr...:

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise in support of my resolution of
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the FCC's broadband
privacy restrictions. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's
Privacy Subcommittee, I have spent more than a year closely examining
this issue.
    In February of 2015 the FCC, under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler, took
the unprecedented step of reclassifying broadband providers as ``common
carriers'' under title II of the Communications Act. In other words, on
a 3-to-2 party-line vote, the FCC decided that internet service
providers should be treated like telephone companies for regulatory
purposes. The decision encroached on the Federal Trade Commission's
jurisdiction to regulate ISP privacy policies, stripping these
companies of their traditional privacy regulator.

[...]

These regulations have altered the basic nature of privacy protection
in the United States. For decades, the FTC policed privacy based on
consumer expectations for their data, not bureaucratic preferences.
These consumer expectations were just common sense: Sensitive data
deserves more protection than nonsensitive data.
    Unfortunately, the FCC rules dispensed with this commonsense
regulatory approach. Under the new rules, what matters isn't what the
data is but, rather, who uses it.

[...]

So the new "rules" the FCC put forward made the privacy worse than it already was! This is a *good* thing.

Lets go ahead and cut to the chase. I'm fond of saying site your sources so let me put up before I have to shut up. Here is the exact text of the ACA, complete with subtext, and related bills. Start reading and tell me you understand all this mess.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/

Do you not realize that you linked to a summary of the law that I linked to in my post?
The link on the page you provided that points to the full text is the exact same document I linked to from the gpo.gov.

Full disclosure: I worked for a hospital these last couple of decades, so I'm familiar with the terminology already, and I had good reason to read this years ago.
And what I wasn't already familiar with, I knew how to look up.
I still maintain it's not hard to understand. I've had trouble with partial differential equations, but not this stuff.

Lets go ahead and cut to the chase. I'm fond of saying site your sources so let me put up before I have to shut up. Here is the exact text of the ACA, complete with subtext, and related bills. Start reading and tell me you understand all this mess.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/

Remember, regardless of party affiliation, when you read a politicians description of a bill, you must invert most of the descriptive language he uses.

You are gonna love H.R.1275 - World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017.
I shit you not, that is the actual name of the bill.

And let's dispense with this "bipartisan bill" bullshit.

This bill was authored by Democrats, and one republican helped sponsor it. That does not make it a "bipartisan effort" in any real sense of the word.

Just so you know, you're actually wrong...though I wouldn't think that'll stop you from your nonsensical crusade.

(Credit an AC who's not being upvoted for whatever reason):
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2011

Mr. Chaffetz (for himself and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

The Senate bill, S.1212, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Wyden a day later -- basically a carbon copy of the House bill. Also:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 2168 ...
"Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
all of the witnesses for making their statements within the
time limit, that is not what usually happens around here. The
Chair will defer asking questions and will begin by recognizing
the author of this bill, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.'

Oh Mabu... Silly, silly Mabu.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2011

Mr. Chaffetz (for himself and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

The Senate bill, S.1212, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Wyden a day later.

Here's a couple of snippets from each bill. Guess which one belongs to which bill.

(2) WARRANT.â"A governmental entity may intercept geolocation information or require the disclosure by a provider of a covered service of geolocation information only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction, or as otherwise provided in this chapter or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

(2) WARRANT.â"A governmental entity may intercept geolocation information or require the disclosure by a provider of covered services of geolocation information only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction, or as otherwise provided in this chapter or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

And you stupidly thought that this bill was written just this year.

Don't you love all of the GOP bashing even though the GODDAMN BILL WAS WRITTEN BY A REPUBLICAN?

You want to give Trump an extra 4 years? Keep bashing and invalidating people who are trying to do good things.

This article is shit. Where's the actual votes? How can you bash the GOP as if you know they ALL opposed it? Do we know what Democrats tried to oppose it and sell out their country? No? Nah, let's ignore them because it messes with "Muh Narrative."

Here's a link with more detail than the OP's article and the plumb sum of every comment here too:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

It doesn't have the votes talled yet. (And the article didn't even mention the fucking bill HR number?) But it's got the list of cosponsers which is a pretty obvious indicator of SUPPORTERS of the bill.

64 Republicans
44 Democrats.

What's that? What? MORE REPUBLICANS cosponsered the bill? No! Surely, the GOP's only goal is to "Take Muh Freedoms!", remember?

Goddamn. Everyone posting here who whines about "The System" doesn't realize their freaking ignorance and blind "Support the Team!" politics are the reason this country is so damn gridlocked in the first place.

And I say all of this as a both-side voting, MODERATE. But nah, feel free to disregard my actual facts under the "He's probably a just Nazi" routine and continue ignoring the GOP people helping you (and ignoring the crimes of the Democrats who DON'T help you). That'll sure make the USA a better place.

Eh, RepublicanCare ("The World's Greatest Health Plan") will go more like this:

Doctor: Do you have money to pay us for keeping you alive?
American patient: Yes
Doctor: Okay, this one can live. Follow up in one week for repeat testing.

States with the biggest H1-B problems, and demanding more to come into the US, are dominated by Democrats.

Republicans cannot be both racist and pro-H1-B. Instead, take a look at the businesses benefiting from H1-B visas and who they are donating to the most.

For some perspective, here's a Republican bill to partially limit H1-B. The bill being discussed here is about adding a new minimum wage to try to avoid the perception of replacing talent with slave labor. It also has other out-of-touch requirements, which would hurt US applicants.

Lofgren's legislation also plays to her Silicon Valley base: It would set aside 20% of the allocated H-1B visas each year for startups, which she defines as firms with 50 or fewer workers.

I cannot name a startup that needed H1-B assistance for some of their first 50 employees.

The only thing that can fix H1-B is to remove H1-B entirely. Businesses should be able to sponsor international talent and spend money bringing them into the US with those people working toward US citizenship. There's no reason that we should be bringing in average (and often below average) talent, especially if that talent has no interest in staying in the US, thus not improving our tax revenues. If we want everyone else's best and brightest, then that's the best way to get them and retain them.

Obama similar executive order in 2011 for Iraq for 6 months and then signed the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 https://www.congress.gov/bill/... , which restricted Libya, Somalia, and Yemen 3 of the 7 countries .

Oh wait, you didn't even cite the Obama executive order so people could compare the differences., and that's a law, not a sudden executive order that went plop because El TrumpenFuhrer just wanted to throw down another hammer.

LOL, I guess the defensiveness is going around, after you spent years hammering Obama for doing nothing, now you need him to have done something to cover your own mistakes.

Consular nonreviewability applies to this case. Legal Aliens at the border have virtually no constitutional rights, this settled case law. The judge is way out of line shooting down the other order.

Go ahead and believe that judicial oversight doesn't exist. We sure need that!

Apparently the DOJ can't even confirm that they looked over this Executive Order.

Obama similar executive order in 2011 for Iraq for 6 months and then signed the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 https://www.congress.gov/bill/... , which restricted Libya, Somalia, and Yemen 3 of the 7 countries .

Consular nonreviewability applies to this case. Legal Aliens at the border have virtually no constitutional rights, this settled case law. The judge is way out of line shooting down the other order.

Consular nonreviewability, end of story. Non-citizens at the border, have no legal standing, ie not even a right to sue.

Obama similar executive order in 2011 for Iraq for 6 months and then signed the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 https://www.congress.gov/bill/... , which restricted Libya, Somalia, and Yemen 3 of the 7 countries .

Where was the up roar then? Same action, I guess Obama was Hitler too by the liberal left logic.

Trump has been president for a week and already the entire GOP has admitted they haven't got a fucking clue what they're doing. No ideas on Obamacare (they're already running scared for their congressional seats, even the guy who sponsored The World's Greatest Healthcare Plan doesn't seem to be willing to stand by it any more. Hell, at this point, a good chunk of them think Trump's a Russian plant.

I think this guy may be in for a world of hurt.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Lastly, where is the investigation in California?

Nobody cares. California only votes Democrat, so no one is going to put resources into investigating

I can only find instances from Illinois and Ohio. Although the LA Times reported back in 2002 that non-citizens testified that they voted in the Compton, CA mayor's race.

There was the US House Oversight Committee report which reported that:

9th--The California Secretary of State announced that an INS analysis of 1,100 persons enrolled in Hermandad citizenship classes had discovered 490 documented non-citizens who registered to vote in CA 46. Of these, 303 actually voted illegally in CA 46, and 69 individuals had no record in INS files.

But those investigations just don't happen very often, because most California elections so rarely matter.

So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...

Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....

Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.

Nope.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfar

Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....

Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.

Wrong.

In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....

Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.

Wrong.

In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

This is blatantly wrong:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

“SEC. 208. CLARIFICATION ON DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM MATERIAL.

“(a) In General.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

Wrong. Just flat out wrong:

“SEC. 208. CLARIFICATION ON DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM MATERIAL.

“(a) In General.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Not really, he's not so completely fucking mental he thinks he can create legislation for a foreign government. Unlike some mentals!

All that really matters is whether the leaks are true. In the case of Podesta's emails, we can validate them by the DKIM signature. We know how Podesta was hacked, though, it was exactly this phishing email. See how that is a bitly link to "reset" his Google password? What I don't know is how they could possibly miss that GMail would flag this saying something like "THIS IS NOT FROM GOOGLE YOU MORON."

Similarly, whether or not that was American intelligence that hacked a top Russian aide, what's perhaps more worrying is that Hillary has been pushing for a no-fly-zone that would leave us shooting down Russian planes over Syria. To most people who know about the area, this sounds like a great way to start WWIII. This might help explain why she's so eager to to expand the draft so women can #FightForHer.

Your failure to read is not my mudslinging. www.wikileaks.com just in case you wanted to go read the emails for yourself. Congressional hearing transcripts can be found here, here, and since you appear to be inept with a Web Search you can get help here. If you refuse to find facts and choose to ignore facts, keep your comments to yourself.

They did. Last year they passed this:https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3410 which was an extension of the original 2013 CIPA and included language about 'space weather'.

And as directed the WH released in October of 2015 their directive to DHS and other departments to develop a plan for studying the impact of such an event.

This year the amended 2016 bill https://www.congress.gov/bill/... stalled (from what I can tell) and the WH issued an executive order to develop a plan for responding to such an event as directed by congress.

I know, particularly on sites like /. that it's cool to throw stones at the government and cast the rest of the world as incompetent but this is an example of government working, not government failing.