Jump to content

SWMissourian

Administrators
  • Content Count

    829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

SWMissourian last won the day on July 22

SWMissourian had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

278 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Senator KANE, for himself (and with thanks to Representative NEGUSE), introduced the following bill: A BILL To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the national security implications of climate change. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Climate Readiness Act of 2021”. SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT ON NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. (a) Report Required.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on— (1) the national security implications associated with climate change; and (2) strategies and approaches for responding to climate change. (b) Report Elements.—The report required under subsection (a) shall include each of the following: (1) An overview of how the exacerbation of current global conflicts, the creation of new global conflicts, and increased geopolitical instability due to climate change is likely to affect the national security of the United States. (2) An overview of how climate change will affect the resiliency of current missions of the Armed Forces of the United States. (3) An overview of the actions the Secretary recommends to address the geopolitical threats to the security of the United States due to climate change. (4) A list of the ten most concerning existing or emerging conflicts that pose a risk to United States security that may be exacerbated by climate change. (c) Form Of Report.—The report required under subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
  2. Senator KANE, for himself (and with thanks to Senator MARKEY), introduced the following bill: A BILL To amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Ending Qualified Immunity Act”. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds as follows: (1) In 1871, Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act to combat rampant violations of civil and constitutionally secured rights across the nation, particularly in the post-Civil War South. (2) Included in the act was a provision, now codified at section 1983 of title 42, United States Code, which provides a cause of action for individuals to file lawsuits against State and local officials who violate their legal and constitutionally secured rights. (3) Section 1983 has never included a defense or immunity for government officials who act in good faith when violating rights, nor has it ever had a defense or immunity based on whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. (4) From the law's beginning in 1871, through the 1960s, government actors were not afforded qualified immunity for violating rights. (5) In 1967, the Supreme Court in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, suddenly found that government actors had a good faith defense for making arrests under unconstitutional statutes based on a common law defense for the tort of false arrest. (6) The Court later extended this beyond false arrests, turning it into a general good faith defense for government officials. (7) Finally, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the Court found the subjective search for good faith in the government actor unnecessary, and replaced it with an “objective reasonableness” standard that requires that the right be “clearly established” at the time of the violation for the defendant to be liable. (8) This doctrine of qualified immunity has severely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to recover damages under section 1983 when their rights have been violated by State and local officials. As a result, the intent of Congress in passing the law has been frustrated, and Americans' rights secured by the Constitution have not been appropriately protected. SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS. It is the sense of the Congress that we must correct the erroneous interpretation of section 1983 which provides for qualified immunity, and reiterate the standard found on the face of the statute, which does not limit liability on the basis of the defendant's good faith beliefs or on the basis that the right was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. SEC. 4. REMOVAL OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by adding at the end the following: “It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought under this section that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when it was committed. Nor shall it be a defense or immunity that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws were not clearly established at the time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that the state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful.”.
  3. Senator KANE, for himself (and with thanks to Senator MARKEY), introduced the following bill: A BILL to prohibit actions to terminate or withdraw the United States from certain international agreements without a joint resolution of approval Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT NAME (a) This bill may be referred to as the "Give Congress A Say Act". SECTION 2. PROHIBITION ON UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS (a) The President may not withdraw from or terminate international agreements or treaties without Congressional approval. (b) Congress may provide approval to withdraw from or terminate international agreements or treaties through a joint resolution of approval. SECTION 3. (a) Any provision of law in conflict with this bill is declared null and void.
  4. From the Office of Calvin Kane Senator Kane Praises SCOTUS Decision on Abortion Law WASHINGTON, D.C. - US Senator Calvin Kane (D-NY) praised the Supreme Court for its decision in Donaldson v. United States, which declared parts of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act unconstitutional. Speaking to reporters outside the Supreme Court building, Senator Kane said: "This law was an unjust, unconstitutional attack on the right of Americans to choose what happens with their bodies. The Fitzgerald Administration unfortunately loves to go after constitutional rights, and they pushed this law through Congress, despite it being clearly unconstitutional. Every woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and today, the Supreme Court affirmed that right. I'm proud to see liberty and common sense prevail over patriarchal tyranny." View full press release
  5. WASHINGTON, D.C. - US Senator Calvin Kane (D-NY) praised the Supreme Court for its decision in Donaldson v. United States, which declared parts of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act unconstitutional. Speaking to reporters outside the Supreme Court building, Senator Kane said: "This law was an unjust, unconstitutional attack on the right of Americans to choose what happens with their bodies. The Fitzgerald Administration unfortunately loves to go after constitutional rights, and they pushed this law through Congress, despite it being clearly unconstitutional. Every woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and today, the Supreme Court affirmed that right. I'm proud to see liberty and common sense prevail over patriarchal tyranny."
  6. @CalvinKaneNY: Americans value immigration and the Constitution. This President’s attacks on both won’t stand.
  7. SWMissourian

    The Hill

    POLL: Americans Approve of E-Verify, Less Sure About Executive Order Q: Do you support or oppose mandating employers to verify employees’ immigration status electronically? Support: 74% Oppose: 13% Unsure: 13% Q: Do you approve or disapprove of President Kyle Fitzgerald’s recent executive order mandating employers to verify their employees’ immigration status electronically? Approve: 60% Disapprove: 32% Unsure/Neutral: 8% Among those who approved of e-verify but disapproved of the executive order, the overwhelming cause cited was the belief that it was a Congressional power, not a Presidential one. Still, a comfortable majority of Americans support the President’s action.
  8. From the Office of Calvin Kane NY Senator Calvin Kane Blasts President’s E-Verify Mandate Washington, D.C. - President Kyle Fitzgerald, continuing with his administration’s theme of racist attacks on undocumented immigrants, recently issued an executive order that mandates national e-verify. Senator Calvin Kane (D-NY) blasted this action when speaking to reporters yesterday on Capitol Hill. “It is without a doubt beyond his power,” he said,“but he did it anyway. It’s a flagrant disregard for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. For all you hear Republicans complaining about that, you’d have thought they would mind the Constitution when they got in power. Aside from that, e-verify itself is a very problematic program anyway. It basically forces everyone to obtain permission from the federal government to work, which sounds draconian to me, doesn’t it? To go after a small percentage of hard-working undocumented Americans, President Fitzgerald is forcing this system on all businesses, and it’s a messy, imperfect system that will cost American workers. All it takes is one bureaucratic error, and, poof, someone just lost their living. The Government Accountability Office estimated at least 164,000 errors based on name changes alone! So, along with that, you have new privacy and security worries, and now immigrant workers—even so-called ‘legal’ immigrants Republicans claim to fight for—and other workers will face discriminatory effects from this. President Fitzgerald obviously either doesn’t care or didn’t consider the consequences of his actions, and it’s plainly unacceptable either way.” View full press release
  9. Washington, D.C. - President Kyle Fitzgerald, continuing with his administration’s theme of racist attacks on undocumented immigrants, recently issued an executive order that mandates national e-verify. Senator Calvin Kane (D-NY) blasted this action when speaking to reporters yesterday on Capitol Hill. “It is without a doubt beyond his power,” he said,“but he did it anyway. It’s a flagrant disregard for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. For all you hear Republicans complaining about that, you’d have thought they would mind the Constitution when they got in power. Aside from that, e-verify itself is a very problematic program anyway. It basically forces everyone to obtain permission from the federal government to work, which sounds draconian to me, doesn’t it? To go after a small percentage of hard-working undocumented Americans, President Fitzgerald is forcing this system on all businesses, and it’s a messy, imperfect system that will cost American workers. All it takes is one bureaucratic error, and, poof, someone just lost their living. The Government Accountability Office estimated at least 164,000 errors based on name changes alone! So, along with that, you have new privacy and security worries, and now immigrant workers—even so-called ‘legal’ immigrants Republicans claim to fight for—and other workers will face discriminatory effects from this. President Fitzgerald obviously either doesn’t care or didn’t consider the consequences of his actions, and it’s plainly unacceptable either way.”
  10. @CalvinKaneNY: “Provide” does not mean you can force e-verify on all businesses unilaterally.
  11. @CalvinKaneNY: President @kylefitzgerald’s executive order mandating e-verify is a gross abuse of Presidential power. It is solely a Congressional right.
  12. @CalvinKaneNY: This administration’s attacks in a woman’s right to choose WILL NOT STAND!
  13. Mr. President, I second and yield.
  14. Calvin Kane (D-NY): Fundraiser - New York (2 hours) Fundraiser - California (2 hours)
×
×
  • Create New...