Congress takes a page from PSN, violates rights in new bill - Polidicks

[release]With the introduction of The American Jobs Act, Americans may soon witness a rerun of the Obama healthcare struggle. Much like its predecessor, president Obama’s newest bill contains certain provisions that would appear to benefit those who wrote the bill more than those for whom the bill was supposedly written. For instance, buried deep, deep on page 133 of [URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/64723281/American-Jobs-Act"]the bill[/URL], it states: [b]SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY.(a)[/b] Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act. Come again? Under the bill’s authority, states are not immune from federal prosecution if they violate the act. In the event this bill passes, it will override a state’s sovereign authority as defined and protected under the [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt11_user.html"]11th amendment[/URL]: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Odd that a bill that seeks to “create jobs” and one that concerns itself with things such as “payroll relief” and “teacher stabilization” can also override the 11th amendment. It gets even better: [b](A) WAIVER-[/b] A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State [B][I]shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity[/I][/B], under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act [emphasis added]. Any state that receives Federal assistance under the direction of bill automatically forfeits its sovereign immunity. Should an employe of the act seek federal prosecution, the state must abide. They will literally make a Federal case out of it. The bill continues: [b](2) EFFECTIVE DATE-[/b] With respect to a particular program or activity, paragraph (1) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day, after the date of enactment of this Act, on which a State first receives or uses Federal financial assistance for that program or activity. [b]c)[/b] Remedies Against State Officials- An official of a State may be sued in the official capacity of the official by any employee or applicant for employment who has complied with the applicable procedures of this Act, for relief that is authorized under this Act. [b](d)[/b] Remedies Against the United States and the States- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in an action or administrative proceeding against the United States or a State for a violation of this Act, remedies (including remedies at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies would be available against a non-governmental entity. It would seem that The American Jobs Act was drafted in order to achieve statist goals rather than create jobs. The authority of individual states is all but thrown to the side. Much like the healthcare struggle, provisions such as the ones mentioned in the above will incite a strong reaction. As well it should–the stakes are too high.[URL="http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/mark-levins-timely-reminder/"]Dick Morris[/URL] said it well when he wrote: It is soft tyranny that requires us to sit by passively while our ethic of cultural assimilation is replaced by a permanent enshrining of diversity. It bids we let our rights to our own property, that we have worked for and acquired, be sublimated to government power disguised as human rights. It asks that we elevate the demand for equality over that for economic initiative and the incentives which propel them. The American Jobs Act may or may not create jobs. It will, however, lessen and diminish the individuality of the states. “Liberty once lost is lost forever,” John Adams said. [URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/64723281/American-Jobs-Act"]Read The American Jobs Act here.[/URL][/release] Eh, we weren't using our rights, anyways... [release][b]Update:[/b] The original reporting of this story was not entirely fair. Since posting the article, it has been brought to the author’s attention that forfeiting the 11th amendment to a bill of this nature it is not that uncommon. As pointed out by The Blaze’s Meredith Jessup: [If] a state is allocated a certain amount of funds for a road project, the initial funding for the project is a debt incurred by the state to be reimbursed by the federal government. This is so the feds can enforce guarantees of debt. It also prevents states from hiring contractors and then refusing to pay without the waiver of the 11th; the contractor would have no legal standing to sue the state for non-payment since the federal government is the ultimate source of funds. You can find similar language in other bills [such as] The Americans with Disabilities Act. Essentially, an 11th amendment waiver prevents states from contracting workers and then refusing to pay. Although a waiver of this type does surrender certain rights, it is not an unheard of arrangement. Therefore, while the claim that states lose their sovereignty if they accept any aid provided by this bill is factually correct, it is the belief of this author that the original story slightly overreacted.[/release]

I'd say 'it won't pass' but these fucking imbeciles will let it go through. [editline]21st September 2011[/editline] Also isn't the public supposed to vote on bills? What happened to that?

[QUOTE=MightyMax;32403134]I'd say 'it won't pass' but these fucking imbeciles will let it go through. [editline]21st September 2011[/editline] Also isn't the public supposed to vote on bills? What happened to that?[/QUOTE] Bills go through congress and are then given to the president for his signature.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;32403134]I'd say 'it won't pass' but these fucking imbeciles will let it go through. [editline]21st September 2011[/editline] Also isn't the public supposed to vote on bills? What happened to that?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ[/media]

Our president isn't a total idiot, he won't let it pass.

[URL="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2781317/posts"]Here's the OP's source[/URL] Clearly a strong example of unbiased media. For (a) I fail to understand how allowing an employee to seek federal prosecution is taking away his rights. [quote]It is soft tyranny that requires us to sit by passively while our ethic of cultural assimilation is replaced by a permanent enshrining of diversity.[/quote] Are you serious? The president isn't asking anybody to surrender their rights, but this country is going to need to get its knees dirty if it plans to get out of the current mess.

It's the conservative version of The Young Turks, deal with it.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32403191]It's the conservative version of The Young Turks, deal with it.[/QUOTE] Sounds like shit.

The rights it "takes away" essentially amount to "if you directly defy federal law in regard to this comprehensive jobs bill, you are not free from prosecution for that defiance" and "if you want financial assistance from the federal government you can't turn around and say you no longer want them to regulate". [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;32403191]It's the conservative version of The Young Turks, deal with it.[/QUOTE] This is a news section, not a "biased reporting" section.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32403191]It's the conservative version of The Young Turks, deal with it.[/QUOTE] when I click on the link on the free republic forum post it leads to a 404ed Blaze post so uh your source seems to have vanished [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32403218]This is a news section, not a "biased reporting" section.[/QUOTE] that line in the sand tends to be a little blurry

[QUOTE=Ridge;32403191]It's the conservative version of The Young Turks, deal with it.[/QUOTE] No.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32403191]It's the conservative version of The Young Turks, deal with it.[/QUOTE] Both suck

I can think of plenty of situations where state governments would be fuckheaded enough to try and manipulate the Jobs Act to stuff their pockets instead of increase employment, so I'm not really that concerned about this. I was always a federalist at heart, though.

oh hey looking around that site I found the post again they updated it a bit [QUOTE]The original reporting of this story was not entirely fair. Since posting the article, it has been brought to the author’s attention that forfeiting the 11th amendment to a bill of this nature it is not that uncommon. As pointed out by The Blaze’s Meredith Jessup: [If] a state is allocated a certain amount of funds for a road project, the initial funding for the project is a debt incurred by the state to be reimbursed by the federal government. This is so the feds can enforce guarantees of debt. It also prevents states from hiring contractors and then refusing to pay without the waiver of the 11th; the contractor would have no legal standing to sue the state for non-payment since the federal government is the ultimate source of funds. You can find similar language in other bills [such as] The Americans with Disabilities Act. Essentially, an 11th amendment waiver prevents states from contracting workers and then refusing to pay. Although a waiver of this type does surrender certain rights, it is not an unheard of arrangement. Therefore, while the claim that states lose their sovereignty if they accept any aid provided by this bill is factually correct, it is the belief of this author that the original story slightly overreacted.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;32403256]when I click on the link on the free republic forum post it leads to a 404ed Blaze post so uh your source seems to have vanished[/QUOTE] Looks like this one still works [url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-you%E2%80%99re-not-hearing-about-the-new-jobs-bill-it-overrides-state%E2%80%99s-rights/[/url]

I don't think the author of the article or the OP understand the point of that section of the bill

[QUOTE=Lambeth;32403364]oh hey looking around that site I found the post again they updated it a bit[/QUOTE] Updated the OP

[QUOTE=Ridge;32403424]Looks like this one still works [url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-you%E2%80%99re-not-hearing-about-the-new-jobs-bill-it-overrides-state%E2%80%99s-rights/[/url][/QUOTE] Congratulations, all of your sources are conservative blogs. [QUOTE=Ridge;32403191]It's the conservative version of The Young Turks, deal with it.[/QUOTE] No. Nobody cares how similar it is to another biased liberal source. Both are wrong, both are silly. Post real, accurate news that contains nothing but information and implications, nobody worth their salt gives a damn about your rhetoric.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;32403171]Our president isn't a total idiot, he won't let it pass.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding? He was stupid enough to approve renewing the Patriot Act. Obama falls to mass media and republican pressure way too fucking easily.

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;32403899]Are you kidding? He was stupid enough to approve renewing the Patriot Act. Obama falls to mass media and republican pressure way too fucking easily.[/QUOTE] You know nothing about how difficult it is to juggle party relations in order to keep things in a Congress so divided as this one running functionally, do you?

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;32403899]Are you kidding? He was stupid enough to approve renewing the Patriot Act. Obama falls to mass media and republican pressure way too fucking easily.[/QUOTE] I forgot that Obama can just prance into office and do whatever the fuck he wants. Oh wait he can't

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;32403171]Our president isn't a total idiot, he won't let it pass.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Leaf Runner;32403899]Are you kidding? He was stupid enough to approve renewing the Patriot Act. Obama falls to mass media and republican pressure way too fucking easily.[/QUOTE] This is the bill proposed by the President. And it isn't even individual rights. It's for the states.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32403191]It's the conservative version of The Young Turks, deal with it.[/QUOTE] Free Republic absolutely is NOT a "conservative version of The Young Turks". [url=http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415552]Read this[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32404453]Free Republic absolutely is NOT a "conservative version of The Young Turks". [url=http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415552]Read this[/url][/QUOTE] Wow, anonymous commenters say stupid shit on the internet? Clearly that invalidates that website as a whole for not deleting their comments. [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tigster;32404333]I forgot that Obama can just prance into office and do whatever the fuck he wants. Oh wait he can't[/QUOTE] He could have Veto'd the bill quite easily.

And thus the GOP smear machine revs up for another run. They convinced us health reform was against our own interests, and they intend to do the same with the jobs bill.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32404639]And thus the GOP smear machine revs up for another run. They convinced us health reform was against our own interests, and they intend to do the same with the jobs bill.[/QUOTE] So far the health care reform bill has only managed to increase taxes and also makes it a crime to not buy overpriced insurance from the primary providers. That was in response to people not being able to buy overpriced insurance from the primary providers. I don't have a lot of faith in what the jobs bill will do.

If you let states just opt out at their leisure (and you know damn well it's going to be red states), it'll undermine the entire thing, and then used as an argument as to why it didn't work. [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;32404697]So far the health care reform bill has only managed to increase taxes and also makes it a crime to not buy overpriced insurance from the primary providers. That was in response to people not being able to buy overpriced insurance from the primary providers. I don't have a lot of faith in what the jobs bill will do.[/QUOTE] Well at this point it'll cost more to repeal than it will to keep going, so it's a bit late to start whining about it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32404453]Free Republic absolutely is NOT a "conservative version of The Young Turks". [url=http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415552]Read this[/url][/QUOTE] Jesus, what insanity is this?

Sean Hannity used to post on Free Republic. He left because he was tired of the owner's childish antics like banning people who don't align with his far right politics. [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] sound like fascism to meeeee [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20100104080736/http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Conservative+Free+Republic+blog+free+speech+flap+after+racial+slurs+directed+Obama+children/1782375/story.html]he also called Obama a marxist american hating pig[/url] Really ridge why would you associate yourself with a website like this

[QUOTE=Ridge;32403061][release][b]SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY.(a)[/b] Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act. Come again? Under the bill’s authority, states are not immune from federal prosecution if they violate the act. In the event this bill passes, it will override a state’s sovereign authority as defined and protected under the [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt11_user.html"]11th amendment[/URL]: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.[/release][/QUOTE] The act is just stating the obvious- the [URL="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]14th[/URL] provides the ability to abrogate sovereignty of the states, as [URL="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer"]decided back in the 70s.[/URL]