The Senate’s Dangerous Homely Security Act

The Senate’s Dangerous Homely Security Act
by Ted Lang, Associate Editor

September 30, 2002

Columnist Ted Lang All that is needed to take what appears to be necessary, common sense legislation, and turn it into a threat to individual freedom, is the intent of some agenda-oriented members of our government. And in that context, we can identify elected officials who demonstrate more allegiance to the principles of a perfect socialist society as envisioned by Karl Marx than do they to our Constitution.

The Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee seems to qualify. The committee includes such illustrious members, dedicated to Ted Kennedy’s credo of "facing down the individual," as Hillary Clinton, turncoat Jim Jeffords, Harry Reid from Nevada, Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer, Lincoln Chafee, and Jon Corzine from New Jersey.

The Senate’s Environmental Committee has a reputation for back room/back door legislation harming both the environment as well as torturing the Bill of Rights and private property ownership. Harry Reid’s American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001, originating in the Committee, was passed via "unanimous consent." That means, it was passed just before a recess, late at night when hardly anyone was around, passed without being read, passed without a roster as to who voted for it, and allowing government whim to confiscate virtually any and all land it sees fit without due process. Should one’s land be so confiscated, one can hire a constitutional attorney and sue.

Another bill proposing warped legislation is in the Senate: The Homeland Security Act. And there is controversy surrounding it. The smokescreen being created around this disaster is a labor relations issue between labor-sensitive Democrats and big business CEO-type Republicans. That debate is hogwash!

The important issues missed by the mainstream press, is that the Homeland Security bill from the House is basically in line with the Bush administration’s intent, but the Senate version is a horror show.

First, the Senate version outrageously cedes immigration limits from Congress to the president. That’s bad because Congress is giving up more and more of its responsibilities to the White House contrary to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. The Senate version continues the separation of INS immigration administration from Customs and the Coast guard. But transferring immigration authority strictly to the president without congressional review also includes ceding this right to other countries and the United Nations. Why should the UN be allowed to participate in the management of our government?

If the president urges a treaty with another nation to include immigration concessions, and two thirds of the Senate passes it in the usual manner of not bothering to read the bill, the US might enter into a treaty which gives immigration control to another nation via the treaty supremacy clause, paragraph two, Article 6, of the Constitution. Why would any sane American agree to that?

Considering that these immigration policy changes would also overturn previous immigration reforms established in 1996 that preclude giving asylum to illegal aliens and releasing them for assimilation in America until a case review is undertaken, it should be of absolutely no surprise whatsoever that this piece of dangerous proposed legislation was added without debate by none other than Senator Edward P. "Ted" Kennedy.

In addition, New Jersey’s Jon Corzine introduced a rider that rams a Marxist environmental agenda down America’s throat. According to CNSNews.com’s Lawrence Morahan, in his article of September 19th entitled "Conservative Groups Step Up Efforts to Kill Corzine Bill," Corzine’s offering "…would unnecessarily regulate about 40 materials deemed as hazardous, including fertilizers, pesticides used by farmers, and chemicals used to keep the country’s drinking water safe." This would raise the cost of fruits and vegetables by burdening the farm and chemical industry with untold mountains of additional paperwork, not to mention increasing our tax burden for more federal environmental police agencies.

Once again, when it comes to Homeland Security, we need to reflect carefully as to who precisely poses the greatest threat to our American freedom. For without freedom, who needs America? ***

Photo of Columnist Ted Lang courtesy of the author