Slashdot Mirror
Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0
jeffkjo1 writes "The U.S. Senate has passed the $82 billion Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill (approved by the House last week), which includes the Real ID act driver's license reform (previously reported here.) The National Governors Association has indicated at the possibility of a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Real ID provisions, which would create national driver's license standards, and a federal database of information from all 50 states."
You know, I remember when they had an Election in Iraq right before the U.S. invaded. I think the vote was 100% for Saddam Hussien. The problem with that is that in almost any real democratic process there are always two or more sides
They really need to make it so they cannot attach measures like this to bills that have absolutely nothing to do with them.
Or do these post-it notes tacked on to unrelated bills need to be stopped?
A lot of western european democracies (Belgium, Finland) have national ID cards. But their government isn't as powerful as the US Federal government.
cat
Once in our lives, it would be great if a bill was introduced without riders, without hidden proposed laws that are enacted once the main bill passes.
Oh that's right. Those clean bills already happens when Congress votes itself a big, fat payraise for screwing over the citizens of the country.
Nevermind.
I cannot believe with so many people raising awareness and complaints to this issue our elected officals voted so strongly in favor of this bill. That's it... I quit voting
that maybe this is actually a good bill? I know its a big shock and horror to slashbots here, but not everybody thinks like you. There are many other people who don't think this Real ID is some horrible invasion of privacy or unconstitutional.
I know, you'll mod me troll, but slashbots need to get over themselves sometimes. While you can scream about "chilling effects", or "slippery slopes" all you want, the US hasn't turned into a facist state in spite of all these predictions on this site for the last 7+ years.
You do the representative democracy thing, you protest legislation you FAX your senators and representatives like crazy and they don't even listen!! They didn't even attempt to remove the RealID rider!
Then the Democrats say they were against this "under-the-table" budget push.
Really? 100-0.
Where's Kerry's "I'm all for immigration" leadership now? 100-0.
Where's Kos? He's been spewing filibuster stories, but not one major post about the RealID
And the Democrats wonder why they're losing elections. Hint, if you're going to act like a Republican... people might as well just VOTE Republican.
This is all Lincolns fault!
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
A national ID is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, any authority to issue official IDs falls to the states. Granted, this hasn't stopped the federal government from taking over education, hate speech legislation, search and seizure, etc. And will the Supreme Court rule on the side of the Constitution? They haven't in recent years, why should they now?
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Principle. A long-forgotten word in politics.
And here is why: This will piss people off. Not just /.ers, but anyone with a mild taste for freedom. And if it pisses enough people off, this hole in democracy will be patched up forever. If a senator tacks on federally paid monuments for his hometown; that is corruption but no one will go up in arms.
But challenge our freedom? Time to stop this crap once and for all. Now, if I'm wrong and the people show themselves so docile they would have thier freedoms raped... God help us all.
"A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
Stuff like this typically happens under the guise of federal funding. As in, "If you want federal money for your road infrastructure, you're going to do this."
Take the national speed limit, for example.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
No sentator wanted election-loser attack ads saying "Senator so-and-so voted AGAINST sending badly needed money for our troops!".
AccountKiller
They could have something like this on their record if they weren't collectively a bunch of politically motivated fucks*. If they really cared they would have openly voted against it on the principal that the two issues don't belong in a bill together.
* and how did they get into power? People who are either too forgiving or too stupid -- OR BOTH -- gave it to them. Government by the people, against the people.
That's the message this bill is sending. What's the point of protecting liberties by force of arms when they can apparently be legislated away? Inalienable, my ass.
Ah ... just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time? Fine leadership style.
I've come to expect dracononian legislation from the Republikans, but the Democrats should be ashamed. Not so much as a whimper. Spineless, gutless wonders.
Another Green vote in 2008 ...
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
. . .of course they cannot have a vote against emergency military funding on their record. . .
Bullshit!
KFG
Well, now we know, anytime a Republican wants a bill to pass, they can just add it as a rider to a military budget bill.
This is mind boggling. It's like...
1. Bribe the military by writing up a law that gives them billions of $$$.
2. Tack on whatever you want.
3. Opposition to your bill's response: ?????
4. End of democracy!
I don't even know what's so inherently bad about a nationalized ID card system or having standards for state driver's licenses -- it's more in how they're used and what can be done with them, which doesn't seem all that more bad than what can be currently done with the current hodgepodge of State ID systems. But this method of passing legislation sucks ass. Maybe next time Bush wants to get an up-or-down vote on a nominee he can send the nominee into the senate with a big cask full of freshly minted 1000 dollar bills earmarked for the Almighty Military.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Y'know, you're making my brain hurt. Let's do this in order.
1: *ALL* States have a constitution of their own, that defines the powers that the persons of the state endowed their government with. I do believe that all 50 states (or, 48 states and 2 commonwealths) currently have constitutions that were based on the federal constitution, and whose current form was adopted after Washington took office. (Some many times; NY's current Constitution, for example, is, IIRC, less than 100 years old.)
2: The states, while seperate, are *NOT* sovereign. Each state is subject to the law of the US Constitution, which explicity notes certian things that can be done only by the states or that cannot be done by any state.
3: The current "Real ID" law is, to my understanding, based in the twin areas of interstate trade and national security, both firmly vested in the federal government. If you don't mind never getting a passport and never taking the plane, you can probably avoid entering into this database--although there will be a fair bit of hardship on your part.
4: You are *already* required to identify yourself when you board a plane, when you get a passport, and when you do any of the other things that you would use RealID for. The federal government *already* can track and aggregate all of the information that it or any government in the United States collects on you. And, ALL of this information is protected by the same kind of legal protection that your yearly tax forms are protected by--and trust me, the government knows FAR more about you from your taxes than they can get from your driver's license.
5: It's worth noting that, if there's only one place where all of your information is stored by the government, then realistically you will be able to use this to much more effectively defeat identity theft. Prove to one federal judge (or even a state judge...) that you are the real CygnusXII and that other guy in Pittsfield is a fraud, and it's a done deal.
You no longer have a representative government
Ah, you mean, like, where the people that get elected by the voters are actually shipped to North Korea, and replaced by cyborgs or something?
Or by "you" you actually mean yourself, and mean that you're not feeling represented because you couldn't persuade enough other people to support your preferred representative(s). Perhaps you didn't invest enough time? Maybe your position or message don't resonate with typical people? Certainly you put a lot of your own time and effort into educating people, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
from ars
...
H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA 102...
Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.
Opponents of the concept of judicial review appeal to an obscure and cryptic article of the Constitution, the (in)famous Article 3, Section 2 (A3S2 for short), which states:
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 last sentence is the kicker, because it looks for all the world like language that would enable Congress to wave a magic A3S2 wand over any piece of legislation no matter how outrageous and have it be completely exempt from review by the courts. The implications for the system of checks and balances if Congress actually invokes this provision are about as profound as it gets, which is why no Congress in American history has ever opted to open that particular can of worms... until now.
You can read more on the tinfoil hat implications of this here if you're interested, but I'll sum it up for you: Congress has crafted a completely unprecedented provision that guts the principle of judicial review by granting the DHS secretary complete and total immunity from the courts when it comes to the construction of "barriers and roads" in this one specific geographical region, and they've buried this provision inside a national ID card act which is itself attached to a large military appropriations bill that no Congressperson in their right mind would vote against (money for the troops and all that).
Obviously, if this passes, it'll set a precedent. First, some obscure border region outside of San Diego, and then on to bigger and better things? As the present bill stands, if DHS built a road through an endangered wetland and committed four murders in the process, nobody could take the government to court over it. Is this the kind of unchecked power that we want Congress to have? The sky's the limit, once the A3S2 can of worms is opened tomorrow.
----
Fuckers. I tried. I faxed my senator. What's the national governors association gonna do when the DHS builds a road over their house?
The politicians get stuck on the horns of a dilemma, possibly due to uninformed voters.
Scenario: Congress creates a bill called the "fluffy bunny petting act of 2005, providing (amongst other things) for free cold fusion generated power and eternal global peace"
Sen Dick Shaftus, (R-TX) decides that this is his opportunity, and attaches a rider - "Infant Mulching Federal Subsidies for the Rich".
Principled politician, Molly Naivitus (D-MA) votes against the bill, desparate to prevent the mulching of infants in her state.
Republicans campaign against Naivitus in Massachussets, outraged that she would vote against petting fluffy bunnies and eternal global peace!
Voters, spun by soundbites and browbeaten by O'Reilly, vote Naivitus out of office.
Future Senators take note, and convince themselves that the main purpose of the bill is probably enough, and some of those infants might have deserved it anyway.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
There is near unanimous fear of "Real ID" (at least from slashDot posters).
I think it's important to point out why.
While I'm sure it appears obvious to many of us, I think others may be wondering why this is such a big deal. The fact that this bill passed seems to suggest some people (many people) don't know what the implications are.
I'm sure I'll miss some of the reasoning (feel free to add on) but here goes my take on it. As a disclaimer, I am Canadian, but I don't think that changes much:
A driver's license, like a social security number, is unique. This means we can uniquely identify a person through their driver's license.
The important differences are:
(1) A driver's license is often used as a saved form of ID while an SSN is not (except for employment purposes). This means your driver's license can be found in many places, potentially at places like your video rental shop.
(2) A driver's license is used as photo ID. This means it is on you and there are several places where the information can be grabbed. Possibly in places as innocent as a bar.
(3) A universal driver's license introduces the idea of a universal reader. Because of it being the only thing that can be reliably found on 99% of the adult population, it could become an easily scanned item to be used as a membership identifier (among other things). If this is done, a single ID can identify you in literally thousands of establishments with a paper trail that will trounce your credit card trail.
(4) When you tie in "saved everywhere", with "stealable anywhere" with "scannable anywhere/information everywhere" you've got a severe loss of privacy.
The reasoning from (1) to (4) is probably not obvious to a lot of people. That's ultimately what makes it dangerous. You get to give up your freedom but it sneaks up on you in a way that you actually agreed to it (which makes it a lot harder to complain about when it happens).
Sunny
Be my Friend
Hello? Our government is not a democracy, it is a constitutionally limited republic. Maybe if our elected leaders remembered that's how our founding fathers wanted it, we wouldn't have these ridiculous intrusions upon our freedoms.
...democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner...
Oh well, keep your powder dry.
...that this got passed. The notion of having a national standard for ID is understandable, but the bill actually states that: "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision." This quite literaly places the Secretary of Homeland Security above the law. This MUST be unconstitutional. Once again i feel very sorry for you. If this got proposed in my country (Australia) i would fight it with a public information campaign, which would be in addition to my countries relatively effective checks and balances halting it in its tracks. (or so I would like to believe)
Yet oddly enough entry requirements have just been relaxed for visitors coming from Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from.
Welcome to America, where common sense is second fiddle to political correctness.
What's even funnier is that IIRC the hijackers all had legit IDs, which were legitimately obtained.
No matter what kind of fancy, high-tech shit they stuff into IDs, as long as there are greedy people in charge of doling out those IDs, people who want fraudulent ones will be able to get them.
What's worse, anyone with fraudulent Real-IDs will not get the scrutiny they deserve-- people will just swipe the thing, see it comes up as valid, and not question it.
It's just the illusion of security, just like all the horseshit they put into place at airports after 9/11. Window dressing, nothing more.
~Philly
And here is why: This will piss people off. Not just /.ers, but anyone with a mild taste for freedom.
Right. Wait, no. Wait four months, then talk to someone random. Not someone on the internet. An actual person. Ask them their thoughts on the Real ID bill. I assure you, they won't have the foggiest idea it even happened.
The battle here isn't in keeping the bill from being passed. The battle is in getting people to care. This battle, we lost.
The courts can not uphold a law if it does not apply. In other words, this bill allows the people making the decisions to exempt themselves from responsibility and even place themselves above the law (granted, some state laws may apply in the case of murder, rape, and other violent crimes which the federal government might not be able to exempt themselves from).
I don't even know what's so inherently bad about a nationalized ID card system or having standards for state driver's licenses -- it's more in how they're used and what can be done with them
The problem with the legislation is that no elected official decides what the requirements are for the license. The department of homeland security can basically make any requirement they want on the card. Examples might be DNA, fingerprints, "terrorist rating", etc. This is not democracy.
AccountKiller
Seriously, the American Slashdot crowd is huge and you know how to communicate. Start communicating with the people who will be running against the incumbents for seats in the Senate in the next election NOW. Give them ammunition against their opponents. Start grass roots campaigning and get the message out. Get it on people's minds and keep it there. If you have that much of a problem with this bill as many of you say, then get to work kicking out the idiots who voted in favor of the bill.
It is your duty as US citizens.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
At the end it doesn't matter, it's a done deal as far as the legislator's are concerned. If this gets past the Courts I'll be very curious to see what the reaction is when it moves from the conceptual to the concrete, when people have to carry permanent identity cards.
No. You'd be allowed to kill those you agree with, too.
Besides, the premise behind the joke is serious... I only want people in office that want to do anything *but* play power games like this. And if they acted a bit more like they didn't want to be there, I think the corollary is that we wouldn't have shit legislation like this steaming heap.
"I am not bothered by anything in this bill".
_ under_the_United_States_Constitution
Not even:
(Redundant, but necessary)
(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--
(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
Doesn't patriotism mean exactly that -- being bothered by un-American acts, not excluding those un-American acts of law by Congress? Since when does Congress -- or ANY branch of government, for that matter -- have authority to circumvent the system of checks and balances we have in place?
If our Supreme Court aren't pussies they'll strike this down faster than you can say the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
I see, so by your logic, we should still be (largely) an english colony, as the founding fathers had no 'legal right' to rebel?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Fine leadership style...
...
Leadership? LEADERSHIP?
THEY'RE THE DAMN MINORITY!
Another Green vote in 2008
How about, instead of letting the morons run the democratic party, you go get your greens to sign up for the democrats, and give the party some #@$!ing balls?
I beileve he'd get a law in the works that promised milk and honey for the nation, repealed all income taxes, made every treehugger happy, and included the national ID law...
and then, line item veto all but the last.
'real' republicans are for non-governmental interference in business small & Large, and non-influence over our daily lives..
I can't believe old, rich, die-hard republicans don't really hate bush & his take on republican politics... it's not what their view used to be.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Don't accept a national ID card.Destroy it.Hack it do something with it outside of it's intended use.I'm sick to death of rules,regulations,unjust laws.The constant errosion of American freedoms.I won't hear another word about we need to do this for greater Security.Yep security.Better stock up on Food precious metals and guns n ammo.
,Democrat that.none of it matters.It's all a game. Good cop,bad cop.All a bunch of murderous thugs working for thier wealthy international handlers.
Read ID is just another example of how fast we are moving towards a police state.Republican this
We are trading Democracy for Fasicm and most people don't even know it and wouldn't believe if you tried to tell em.Re-Educate the populous and turn against Real ID and anything else like it.
they tried that. and they lost the election.
dems stood up against power hunger redistricting in texas. for that they lost five seats.
currently in polls dems are seen as weak on national security. when election time comes, any of them who voted against the spending bill for iraq would be hung with it. and then a republican would come in and then the gop could pass even more noxious legislation.
numerous democratic senators spoke out against this bill. did you see them speak out against it? it was on cspan-2.
i suspect you didn't - like 99% of america.
what are their other options to speak out against the bill? cable news was too busy covering the runaway bride. right-wing talk radio wouldn't let a liberal get more than two sentences in a row out without screaming them down. sure, they could get into newspapers but then you're back to the cspan2 audience.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
This aspect of the bill is completely ridiculous. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship, if, in his sole opinion, doing so is necessary to put up better fences between the US and Mexico. There is no legal recourse: it is now the law that such actions can't be challenged in court. It's a blank check.
Sorry, but including two phrases in the bill which disallow judicial review of executive behavior is not Constitutional.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
Since this thing will be accepted NATIONWIDE, the value of it to criminals will go through the roof.
And remember what Capitalism has taught us, where there's a market, there's a supply.
So, the bad guys can search the entire nation, looking for the weakest link to exploit because the return will be HUGE.
Right now, people pay thousands of dollars (per person) to be smuggled into the US. With RealID, they arrive with a nationally accepted identity.
This system is "brittle". Once any ONE point (out of thousands) is cracked, the entire system is open.
And the incentive to find that weakest point is huge.
MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION (a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use-
(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this division, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section.
If a state chooses not to follow H.R.1268 they don't have to. Their ID won't be accepted by federal agencies - but there are other forms of ID besides State drivers licenses / State ID cards that the federal agencies will accept.
Remmeber how Kerrey got attacked because he voted against all those military spending bills, and that he voted against a bill that "would have given food and provisions to our soldiers in iraq". Well that's the reason why everybody voted for this bill.
Look how many Americans assembled together to protest our involvement in Iraq. Did it make a scintilla of difference? No.
Does it matter that millions of people don't think sharing songs online is that big of a deal? No. But a few people in a few corporations think it is a big deal, and they're the ones that are able to get laws passed.
Should we continue our failing war on drugs and continue to fill our prisons with non-violent drug-offenders? Despite the fact that it has had no effect on drug use or the drug trade in our country, we continue on this path, because it's a convenient way of controlling the population (felons can't vote, for one example).
The government is controlled by the rich and the powerful. You can assemble as many geeks together as you want... if you're lucky they might even write about you in the newspaper! It won't change anything.
I'm afraid the sheep-like americans won't wake up from their media-induced slumber until things get worse... much worse. When no one but the richest 5% of the country has health care. When no one can afford a good education. When a quarter of the country is considered a felon (with leg bracelets, no doubt!). When these terrible things come to pass, and much more... then we will see real change. With that in mind, George Bush for president in 2008!
Technically that is correct but we all know banks and such that operate over multiple state lines will just move to the all in one federal card for identification for people without that particular state ID. Want to open an new account at BankofAmerica, "where is you Real ID card", want to get a cell phone, "where is you Real ID card".
It has also been said that you will not be allowed to ride Amtrak which is federal, without one, or fly in commercial aircrafts either. I'll be really f****** annoyed if I can't get on a plane unless I put all my data in some database for soem facists to peek at or some hacker to get at since it will be centralized.
Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
How about talking to others about it instead of telling each other about it?
C'mon peeps, now's the time to get people friendly.
The United States Constitution is "the law of the land";
Okay, and where in the Constitution does it outlaw secession? Keep looking, bucko...
a succession ordinace can't trump it.
Actually, it can. You see, the right to secede was reserved to the States by the tenth amendment. Here it is if you'd like to read it.
Regardless, the US government was founded on the principle of self-government, as espoused in the Declaration of Independence. For Lincoln to deny it a mere 70 years later was hypocritical and tyrannical.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
FANTASTIC idea. Who do we have to bribe to get it passed into law??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
On the bright side the national ID standards will require that illegal aliens not be given normal licenses. This is GOOD news for those who want to reduce government. Being from Washington State (the site of a rather grizly Gubernatorial election as of late) I will most certianly appreciate any new measure to prevent illegals from reaping *any* unearned benefits of citizenship... especially services that cost me tax dollars but most importantly "the vote".
This bill passes 100-0, which I'm assuming (although I could be wrong) means every Senator, Republican, Democratic, and Independent, voted for it.
Yet just about everyone here wants to blame only the Republicans for the bill.
Yet just about everyone here wants to blame only the Republicans for attaching unrelated bills.
Both sides do it, yet just about everyone wants to pretend that only "the other party" does it.
Why, then, is a uniform driver license considered bad?
For a long time one could not fly without a driver license, passport, or other "government issued" photo id -- something I personally resented greatly even during the "happy" Clinton era.
Invasive of privacy? Hardly any more than the current license. What's the big deal? Can't even blame it on a particular "special interest"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
BTW, their search engine has this thing where it caches results for your session only. If you check the URL and see a 'temp' in it after 'query' linking to that particular page of results won't work.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
The driver's license should be exactly that -- a license to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads. It should not be identification. They were not designed to be, the systems which issue them were not designed with that purpose in mind, and misusing them as identification causes endless problems, as can now be seen. (same thing with SSN as a presumed unique ID for every purpose)
Driving without a license should be an extremely serious offense, not the casual slap-on-the-wrist thing it is now. Unless someone has proven their ability to control a big heavy mass with lots of kinetic energy, they should not be allowed to do so near other people, and doing so should be dealt with harshly. Never mind who they are, never mind if they are legally within this border or that. The only identification should be to ensure that the license really is issued to them (they're the ones with the proven skill), and that the license is valid (not forged).
I really would like to see it become more straightforward for anyone, legally or illegally present, to get a driver's license. And at the same time make it very straightforward that driving without one puts your ass in jail. Harsh consequences, but simple painless and threat-free compliance.
I'm a hell of a lot more afraid of some of the drivers I see hurtling toward me on the road than I am of a random bombing or plane hijacking. But as is usually the case, numbers and real risk get ignored in favor of emotional reaction. This lets lottery tickets get sold to the gullible [relatively benign], and lets despots take power, a little at a time [decidedly evil].
[side comment about misusing tools for purposes other than the intended ones, driving nails with a screwdriver and complaining that all screwdrivers need to be heavier and have a flatter surface...]
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
Or it could be that politicians are so eager to appear to be supporting our troops that they will pass anything as a military appropriations bil.
A blog about stuff.
It's basically the majority extorting the minority into voting for something they might not otherwise. In 18 months, 1/3rd of the Senate and all of Congress are up for election. In about half that time, campaigning is going to begin.
The majority of the bill regarding funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Tsunami relief. Remember all the mud thrown at Kerry for voting "against" funding for troops? You can try to defend such a vote all you want, but the thing is the argument will always end with "but you voted against properly equipping our fighting men and women!!"
While I'd like to think that at least one person in the Senate would have the cajones to stand up against something like this and vote against it, the democrats also know that if they voted against it, they stand a greater chance of losing their seat to a republican next election. Which is the greater loss?
I'd suspect we'll see a number of bills introduced in the near future to try to repeal parts of the bill not relating to military funding.
Quite honestly, you have the 17th amendment to blame for putting us in this shithole. Previously, the senate was an indirect democracy, elected by the state legislatures. The days of the Senate representing the states ended about the same time the federal government began claiming powers not specifically excluded, rather than those specifically granted, which is right around the time the 17th amendment was ratified.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Seeing the notion that there are "real" Americans modded as insightful shows how much of a distopian joke American politics have become.
Signed,
A fake American whose opinions, hopes, dreams, and fears don't matter.
No, I'm just saying that for people like Frist to scream bloody murder is blatantly hypocritical, particularly when he tried the tactic himself.
HE PARTICIPATED IN THE FILIBUSTER OF PAEZ.
He defended the filibustering of a Judge.
I don't care if it wasn't successful, itw as USED. He's just bitter it didn't work when HE did it.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I guess when you are unable to come up with an intelligent rebuttal to a political argument, violence is a natural alternative.
More like, when intelligence and reason don't stop the corruption, violence is the ONLY alternative.
I disagree with GP, by the way... I think the time for planning and performing the extermination should be deducted from the community service requirement.
It may be taken for granted among some, but many have not only never read Brave New World or 1984 (different, but each has a message), many have no exposure to the ideas of those works. The ideas of 1984 have been often imitated in mainstream culture and are likely better known. It is a black and white work. Huxley's book is far more subtle and, I think, less appreciated. Both should be prerequisites to vote, I feel.
A gram is better than a damn.
just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time?
You deride the republicans, yet listen to their rhetoric wholeheartedly.
The bill authorizing force in Iraq authorized it as a last resort for the purpose of making sure Iraq complied with inspections under the assumption that iraq had WMDs.
Sen. Kerry had a speech around the time of that bill where he explained very clearly why he was voting for it -- and, moreover, what the president had promised to do with the power of the bill.
The president then broke his promise and rushed to war without any chance for diplomacy, and definitely without any hard evidence that Iraq was hoarding WMDs.
Those who voted for the bill certainly had something to complain about when we actually went to war.
But of course, the masses of people don't see the details of the bill -- or any bill -- and just think "he voted for the iraq war." That's the same problem with these "rider" bills -- people don't care about the details. They generalize to some abstract version of the bill based on its title and not what it actually says. Even Pres. Bush did this in the debates regarding the "partial-birth" abortion bill. And now you're guilty of it as well.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
William Shirer is famous for his books about the rise and fall of the Nazi regime in Germany during the 1930s/1940s. He lived in Germany until 1941 or 1942, one of the last USians to remain until Hitler forced out all foreign journalists.
Reading "The Berlin Diaries" or "The Nightmare Years" I'm stunned to read statements from the common Germans of those days that literally echo the kind of talk I hear from so many of my countrymen. Authoritarianism and acquiescence is on the rise here in the States, with probably a majority of citizens absolutely believing that there are things they should't know about (and thus no-one else should know either, unless they're authorized to know).
I won't make the kind of statement like "The US is turning into Nazi Germany !" But I will point out that it is the worst sort of naivete to believe that because it's a black woman she couldn't possibly be a fascist, or because it's a Latino official he couldn't possibly be a supporter of torture and assassination.
The US is now ruled by a corporate plutocracy with no intention of ever letting go of the control of a machine that makes vast profits for them through the waging of war. When the war profiteers run the government, exactly what kind of society do you think will result ? And why in the world would those who profit so much from this war (and those already being planned) want to end this profitable state of affairs ? Most USians are now just fools with a level of ignorance equal to the German populace in the 1930s. Read Shirer, and fear for this nation and its people.
Btw, the US people are not represented by the Senate at all. Senators represent large corporate interests who pay them to vote for corporate interests. There isn't a single populist Senator in the Congress, and their despite for the common man is evident. They are the same kind of men and women who would have willingly followed Hitler to Hell if it meant the possibility of increasing their personal profits. Conscience is dead in Congress, and it's been buried for a long time now.
Welcome to the nightmare of the real. Prepare yourself.
"You are not free while you watch TV." - OtL
that we abolished parties in general. Their days of being helpful are over and in fact they stagnate politics. No 3d party candiate doesn't have a real chance in most American's eyes because he does not have the blessing of the 2 that are like 1 (Dems and Pubs are both the same minus the funny hats).
If we got rid of parties, people would have to vote for someone based on their merits, not based on which club they belong to and are beholden to. We could actually have people who are running who are the best for the job. No more voting down a line either. Create a thinking government.>
Get rid of parties for parity.
Certain parts of the Consitution are, generally, ignored by the government. Let's just admit that.
Judicial review - as we understand it - is simply tradition. Marbury vs. Madison (as you cite) established it, and Congress has never, to my knowledge, effectively fought it. Review has proven useful over the years, but not necessarily wise.
But can judicial review be legislated against - can it be made illegal? Can legislation be barred from review? The extreme conservative agenda in America would like to find out. This is not packing the court, rerouting the appellate process, or calling "States Rights!." This is plainly shielding legislation from court review.
So much has ridden on judicial review - so much that we call American and associate with liberty - no one really wants to butt heads with it directly. What's especially ironic is that there is no Court that can reasonably rule on judicial review, because it involves that branch's jurisdiction (which in this case is interpreted, not explicit). So this is something for which our system has no procedural remedy - unless we just sit back and let the Congress protect whatever laws it wants protected. This is an inevitable, and troubling path.
No, a vote for democrats or republicans would be throwing my vote away. They do not represent my beliefs, nor are they close enough to be worth compromising on them. So it is a wasted vote to give it to them. Maybe my candidate doesn't win, but it sends a message: I care enough to vote for someone who won't win.
The major parties always watch the third parties. When they become too powerful they start moving in that direction to pick up those votes. So the only way I can achieve long term change is to vote for someone who believes what I want to happen long therm.
Voting republican or democrat just says that you think they are doing just fine.