Slick... very, very good attempt at slicktitude.
Senator Corker's attempts to parse words is amazing. If we didn't live in Tennessee, where it's illegal, I'd bet good money some lawyer wrote that.
An amendment to legislation is exactly that, an amendment. Its function is to change the legislation. An amendment by itself specifies what sections shall be eliminated and replaced by specific verbiage in the amendment.
When an amendment is incorporated into legislation, the legislation (bill) is modified as specified in the amendment.
Now, let's take this 1,187 page bill with Senator Corker's amendment incorporated. To be sure... excuse me... let us be clear, this amendment doesn't even come close to eliminating the more egregious stipulations of the original bill. The Secretary of The department of Homeland Security still has authority to determine whether or not a fence is required. 700 miles? We had fencing authorized before... in 1986 and 1993. It was funded in 2006.
If I had a fence for my dogs, and it had a humongous gap in it, I'm absolutely certain they wouldn't run right through it at their first opportunity.
As for no one reading 1,200 pages, let's take a look a couple of things. First, it's only 1,187 pages. Second, it may have been up online since May but who has time to read and analyze that much text, written in legalese and referencing back and forth to other pages as well as other statutes, and then has time to understand the whole shebang? Third, where, specifically, does the good Senator's amendment eliminate all discretionary enforcement of the law if it is to be enacted? Forth, where in the amendment does this eliminate inclusion of President Obama's so-called stimulus program? Fifth, where in the amendment does it require illegal aliens (who would then be legalized) to suffer the same consequences as citizens of these grand United States of America, the greatest nation to ever grace the face of Planet Terra, when, in fact, the legislation allows an illegal immigrant to still have more than three misdemeanor convictions in his background check and still qualify for legalization. Sixth, does the amendment eliminate all pork, the other white meat and much the bane of those PETA folks, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" not "People Eating Tasty Animals," such as Senator Reid's Las Vegas tourism provision? Seventh, does the amendment eliminate all opposing requirements and in the event of stated opposing requirements, does the amendment stipulate which takes precedence?
And last, but not least, there are three kinds of mathematicians in this world... those who can count and those who can't.
The answer to all of the above is a resounding "NO." Well, except for the last one... that's yes.
Where have all the leaders gone?
Gone for power every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Leaders lead, they don't look for consensus. The late Margaret Thatcher often stated that consensus is nothing more than a lack of leadership.
It will be interesting to see the good Senator's next attempt to cover up this mess like a cat in a litter box, and both are equally stinky.
Are you truly working for the working man, Mr. Senator? Really? I mean, like, really really?
Royce E. Burrage, Jr.
Royce@Officially Chapped.org
* * *
If all previous requirements are not eliminated, they're still part of the legislation. Unless his amendment specifically eliminates the more egregious stipulations, they're still part of the bill. Am I wrong?
Joe Blevins