goodbye country

[intjonathan]

RealID Passes US Senate 100-0

Papers, please. Also, the Department of Homeland Security is above the law.

Terrorism Terrorism TERRORISM!

I love my country but Australia is looking pretty nice right about now.

Comments

[bornofthesun.livejournal.com]

I fail to see how presenting your birth certificate when getting a driver's license as to avoid illegal immigrants obtaining them presents a threat to civil liberties.

[niralisse.livejournal.com]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

[bornofthesun.livejournal.com]

Two things:

1. Are you sure linking to some random guy's blog that's on a PC website is the best way to make your arguement? Even if he did say something that would make your point, it isn't a terribly credible source.

2. What exactly was suppose to alarm me as to the status of my civil liberties in that blog? He has some rant about placing the DHS above the constitution, but doesn't really explain how.

Again, I'd be interested in your point, but you need to provide something concrete.

If he's talking about the exemption of environmental regulations along the border as being anti-constitution/anti-civil liberties (the only thing I can figure), that's really, really, really over the top and shows a misunderstanding of both the roll and history of judicial review and that of the congress.

[niralisse.livejournal.com]

Ars is no blog, they're a well-respected news site among geeks. They've been around far longer than the word 'blog'. Besides, the issue was widely reported, I just thought they had a pretty balanced view of why people are freaking out about it.

I get the impression that most people panicking about this law aren't so much worried about the letter in it but the precedent it sets. I'm not aware of any other law that specifically places an offical or agency above judicial review. It seems like a frightening prospect, being that many of our civil liberties (integrated schools, etc.) were earned through fighting via the judicial branch, and if an agency above that level of review was violating said liberties we would lose that avenue of recourse.

[bornofthesun.livejournal.com]

I think you've done a pretty good job of explaining your concerns this time, but I think they are terribly misguided.

First of all, I'm not sure if you are aware, but judicial review is not, and never has been, part of the Constitution. The court took it upon it's self in a case called 'Maubary vs. Madison' in the early 1800's and has never let go. The courts were intended to interpret the law and settle disputes, true, but what exactly that meant was a matter of contention even among those who wrote the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was strongly opposed to the idea of the judiciary having the final say on the constitutionality of laws, for example.

That said, I generally support the idea of judical review, with some strong reservations. But I think it is a mistake to give the courts more power and more esteem then was intended.

Also, in this case, constitutionality isn't even at stake, merely statutory laws. Congress clearly has the authority to place one set of statues above another, and they have done so in the past before.

I do think it says something about the current state of our legal system, that, in order to prevent 50 years of litigation over some cactuses and prarie dogs, they must exempt the entire statute from review, essentially nullifying all loopholes.

I also think it is a GRAVE error to assume that just because the courts re-enforced some rights in the 1950's, that they are assumed to be the first and last place to look for them. They have taken away just as many rights as they have given. Dred Scott is the most obvious and non-controversial example of a court actually stripping someone of his rights, but especially if you see a threat in the court's jurisdiction being taken away over a few environmental laws, I think it's fair to say that the court has done MUCH MUCH more then that much more recently, in the other direction. They have done more damage to individual property rights in the name of environmental regulation in the past 20 years then any legislature, no matter how determined, could have hoped to do.

It's also worth noting, at least in my opinion, in Roe. v. Wade, it was the courts that stripped the unborn of every right they have, literally. I understand that's a matter of contention, but even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably the most liberal justice on the court, has said that it was in and of it's self a bad decison.

I just bring these up, because I think 'trusting' the courts to provide rights is one of the most dangerous and distructive thought patterns that has come to be common wisdom in the past 50 years. They are not suppose to be, nor are they, the ultimate refuge of those concerned with civil rights.

[niralisse.livejournal.com]

So, say the DHS commits some grave crime or enacts a clearly bad policy. What would you propose the review process to be, if not judicial? Believe me, I know the courts are not perfect, but as it stands they seem like the best we've got.