Page 26 of 29 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 281

Thread: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

  1. #251
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,601

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    1) What part of "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" don't you understand?
    Where does it say anything about "immigration" there? You post it as proof that immigration is a federal matter. But it doesn't say that anywhere. By itself, it doesn't prove anything that you said, yet you offer it as incandescent, stand-alone proof. it simply isn't.


    2) Enforcing Federal law is one thing, but adding new terms and conditions to Federal law, such as requiring "papers", is not allowed, as that would change the Federal law, thus violating the supremacy clause of Article VI.
    How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the AZ law does not require anything above and beyond federal law? That it's the federal law, not the AZ law, which requires resident aliens to carry their documentation at all times? Do you simply not want to know what the truth of the matter is? Have you simply made a decision about this and will not accept that your version of what the law says might be erroneous? It certainly seems that way.

    Learn what the law says. Then comment. It's the only responsible way to go about it. Anything other than that is only so much uninformed blather.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #252
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,985

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    1) What part of "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" don't you understand?
    The Constitution gives states rights. I don't see a Constitutional violation in the AZ law
    2) Enforcing Federal law is one thing, but adding new terms and conditions to Federal law, such as requiring "papers", is not allowed, as that would change the Federal law, thus violating the supremacy clause of Article VI.
    They aren't adding to the federal law, nothing about the AZ law changes any feral law. What they are doing is making a federal offense a state offense as well (being an illegal immigrant). The AZ state police are not the ones doing the deporting either. They would merely have the power to ask for proof of citizenship if there is reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal. I believe under the law, the person has 24 hours to prove they are a citizen whether that be a license, birth certificate, passport, etc (nothing unreasonable about this, just as much as a cop asking for ID or a driver's license). Once caught, illegal aliens would be turned over to federal authorities who would then take it from there.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #253
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    1) What part of "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" don't you understand?

    2) Enforcing Federal law is one thing, but adding new terms and conditions to Federal law, such as requiring "papers", is not allowed, as that would change the Federal law, thus violating the supremacy clause of Article VI.

    wait, what?


    So, the state can't demand identification documents from suspected (mexican) scofflaws?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #254
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Know what I'd love to see....

    Someone taking suit if possible against Barack Obama and the executive branch for violating the law by choosing to not enforce it. For example, if a chief of police knew that there was a string of murders happening his city and he just decided to tell all his police officers to stop searching for and arresting murders, that we aren't going to enforce that law...what recourse could the population have against him? What punishment could he have for that. I honestly think similar should be available to Obama. There needs to be checks and balances and there appears to be none if the Executive Branch can essentially pick and choose whether or not it wishes to enforce laws.

    From my understanding of this judge's ruling it is NOT based on Arizona's law conflicting with federal law, but conflicting with federal ENFORCEMENT...or more ot the point LACK of enforcement...of said laws. To me, the federal governments executive branch being derellict in its duties of enforcing the laws its legislative branch has passed should not be reason to stop states from enforcing said laws.

    There's a way in this country to stop enforcing laws you dislike.....have it struck down in court or have it overturned legislatively.

  5. #255
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,985

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    I just got hired as a pharmacy tech, and part of my training is that I have to learn about laws regarding controlled substances, patient privacy, and certain otc drugs that may be used to make meth. One of the main laws I have to learn about and comply with is HIPAA. HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) is a federal law that gives guidelines to healthcare workers and facilities regarding patient privacy, patient documents, and the release of such information. In my training I have had to learn the federal HIPAA guidelines. But in my training I was taught that I am to put state regulations above HIPAA regulations if the state regulations are more stringent. States are allowed to mirror federal law (HIPAA) and pass stricter guidelines for patient privacy protection, and when they do, we are told to follow the state's regulations if their regulations are stricter than the federal ones. Why is this not illegal? Why can states in this instance be allowed to mirror federal law and pass laws that are more strict than federal law? The AZ law simply catches illegals and sends them to federal authorities, yet that was ruled illegal. Why is it that states can pass stricter patient laws but AZ cannot make a federal offense a state offense that is enforcible by state police as well? Even considering that the end result will be that the illegals caught will be sent to federal authorities.
    Last edited by digsbe; 07-30-10 at 01:39 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #256
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,601

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    From my understanding of this judge's ruling it is NOT based on Arizona's law conflicting with federal law, but conflicting with federal ENFORCEMENT...or more ot the point LACK of enforcement...of said laws. To me, the federal governments executive branch being derellict in its duties of enforcing the laws its legislative branch has passed should not be reason to stop states from enforcing said laws.
    In fact, the exact argument used by the feds, and agreed to by the judge, was that this measure in AZ will overwhelm the feds with requests.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #257
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,672

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Know what I'd love to see....

    Someone taking suit if possible against Barack Obama and the executive branch for violating the law by choosing to not enforce it. For example, if a chief of police knew that there was a string of murders happening his city and he just decided to tell all his police officers to stop searching for and arresting murders, that we aren't going to enforce that law...what recourse could the population have against him? What punishment could he have for that. I honestly think similar should be available to Obama. There needs to be checks and balances and there appears to be none if the Executive Branch can essentially pick and choose whether or not it wishes to enforce laws.

    From my understanding of this judge's ruling it is NOT based on Arizona's law conflicting with federal law, but conflicting with federal ENFORCEMENT...or more ot the point LACK of enforcement...of said laws. To me, the federal governments executive branch being derellict in its duties of enforcing the laws its legislative branch has passed should not be reason to stop states from enforcing said laws.

    There's a way in this country to stop enforcing laws you dislike.....have it struck down in court or have it overturned legislatively.
    Why stop with Obama? Take it to Bush and all the presidents preceeding as well. Unless, of course, Obama gives them amnesty like Reagan did.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  8. #258
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Because I honestly believe its generally bad precedent, save for the highest of crimes, to start prosecuting or taking action against former Presidents. I think it creates an atmosphere where it becomes even more politicized as one side gets power and just starts trying to extract a pound of flesh from the guy before. And I apply this equally to both Bush and Clinton.

    That said, I don't actually think it should be necessarily equal to what the Police Chief may face. I'm not suggesting it should be some kind of legal punishment, though I do think it should be some sort of legal compelling to actually enforce the law that the legislative branch has passed. If affect such compulsion action's still not taken then possibly taking further action would be warranted.

  9. #259
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    the new law says "stopped, detained' OR arrested". i think if a person has been arrested, fine, check out their immigration status. otherwise, forget about it. if you're hispanic and pulled over for nothing, which happens all the time, this law invites profiling.
    Any proof people get pulled over for nothing because they are hispanic, or are you being ignorantly judgemental of the people who maintain order in the society you live in?

    The law doesn't invite profiling, the law invites using common ****ing sense to help enforce immigration law. If someone (since YOU brought up "pulled over" ) is driving a vehicle and cannot provide a driver's license (knowing that illegals cannot obtain a driver's license through the DMV), speaks little to no english, provides you with a foreign made ID card (this happens all the time) or an ID card made at a facility that makes ID cards that "claim" to be "official" (also happens all the time), and you know from your experience that this is the place where people who are not here legally go to get ID cards so they can purchase cigarettes/beer, etc. Said ID card has a local address on it. You can arrest this individual for the NOL (No Operators License) charge and take them in to be processed at the jail, and verify their immigration status at that time. If one is stopped on the streets behind the wheel, this whole problem is VERY, VERY easy.

    Its contacts outside of the roadway where things get complicated.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  10. #260
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Judge blocks part of controversial Arizona immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe this was asked already. But let's just assume that enforcement of law leads to racial profiling. I'm making no judgment that it will, nor am I making a moral judgment on the usage of racial profiling. But let's just say that it does. Let's say that most latino looking individuals who have been stopped or questioned for committing a crime are asked for some form of identification.

    So? How is that a bad thing? Who would that hurt? OMG, they have to show an ID if they're stopped for committing a crime. Oh the horror. Seriously?
    Actually if an officer has reasonable suspicion (there is that word again) to stop you in reference to a possible connection with a crime that recently occurred, or is occurring (insert billions of ways that could come about via hypothetical situations here), and he asks for your ID, he is well within his rights to do so. If you done have one, well, you don't have one, I disagree that someone should be arrested for not having ID, but the fact remains that if you give false information and it is verified that you gave false information, you can be charged with that later. We have our ways of checking this sort of thing.

    One thing that bothers me about this is people acting as if officers do not have the right to ASK people certain questions or ASK people for certain documents. We can ASK you for whatever the hell we want, just like any other person on the planet can. Its at what point you have the right to NOT ANSWER or NOT PRODUCE said documents is what one needs to look for. For example. I can walk up to any person on the street and ask them what their address is. They don't have to give it to me. However, if arrested and I ask them for a their address, and they refuse to give it to me, they can expect to sit in jail without having a bond set until they decide to stop being a douchebag and provide said information. See how that works?


    Look, if bunch of sexy white women with blonde hair and blue eyes were running around committing a crime spree in a certain area, I would expect to be stopped and questioned. If I was NOT, I would figure the cops aren't doing their jobs.
    What if they didn't think you were sexy?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Page 26 of 29 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •