Show Us Your Papers

[LongLiveYorke 38]

If the federal government wants to make something illegal they should follow that same program and make an amendment.

Or they could make a law.

[brvheart 1,752]

strict constitutionalist... except when I disagree with the constitution

I'm assuming this is aimed at me, but I don't know how this applies to what I said. If I disagree with the constitution, then I should vote in a representative that would amend it.

Or they could make a law.

agreed. Especially if Congress is the one making the laws and not judges.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

agreed. Especially if Congress is the one making the laws and not judges.

Judges don't make laws, they decide which laws or which parts of laws are allowed. Don't make me link the "I'm just a lonely bill" video, because I'll do it, dammit.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

All right, you mother****ers asked for it:

[brvheart 1,752]

Judges don't make laws

I wish.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I wish.

Clearly you didn't watch the video. That should explain all of your questions.Also, in general, given the choice between the two, I tend to trust judges over members of congress, even if they're as conservative as today's judges are.

[brvheart 1,752]

Clearly you didn't watch the video. That should explain all of your questions.Also, in general, given the choice between the two, I tend to trust judges over members of congress, even if they're as conservative as today's judges are.

I don't have any questions. I know how the system works.The bolded made me black out for a second.Also: I never ever ever ever trust one person more than 560 people when making a decision. Especially if the one person is a judge living on the west coast.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The bolded made me black out for a second.

I meant to say Supreme Court, if that helps.

[AmScray 355]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMy_w5HsfdI

[CaneBrain 95]

The bolded made me black out for a second.

Then you woke up and realized the Supreme court of the land is quite conservative.edit: which the author of the Arizona law is counting on heavily!Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the law, said he foresaw a protracted legal fight from the beginning."I wrote it to go to the Supreme Court," he said before the ruling came down. "I'm begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court. We will win in a 5-4 decision and finally settle this problem."He even knows the breakdown of liberals and conservatives and is counting on the activist conservative judges to undo decades of precedent and signal a giant shift in immigration enforcement. Gosh dang right-wing activist judges!I am also glad Mr. Pearce asked the citizens of Arizona if they were hoping to spend millions on a legal battle over a law that could be completely pre-empted by immigration reform at any time. Oh, that's right, he did not do that. Nice guy, fiscally responsible.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I don't have any questions. I know how the system works.The bolded made me black out for a second.Also: I never ever ever ever trust one person more than 560 people when making a decision. Especially if the one person is a judge living on the west coast.

I would also trust 560 people over one, but I would absolutely trust a judge over 560 politicians.

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't have any questions. I know how the system works.The bolded made me black out for a second.Also: I never ever ever ever trust one person more than 560 people when making a decision. Especially if the one person is a judge living on the west coast.

Next time you're on the operating table we'll be sure to take a poll on where to make the incision.

[CaneBrain 95]

****ing finally:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/28/hou...ties/index.htmlJust another step in a more sensible direction.

[El Guapo 8]

****ing finally:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/28/hou...ties/index.htmlJust another step in a more sensible direction.

Was this keeping you up at night?

[vbnautilus 48]

Was this keeping you up at night?

He probably doesn't want the economy of Miami to collapse.

[CaneBrain 95]

Was this keeping you up at night?

No, that's my back.They have been trying to do this since the Clinton presidency though. AND I dont want the economy of Miami to collapse. AND maybe we are finally realizing that being overzealous with prison sentencing is really, really fiscally irresponsible.

[AmScray 355]

AND maybe we are finally realizing that being overzealous with prison sentencing is really, really fiscally irresponsible.

This is a raindrop in the ocean, in that regard, and entirely token in nature so don't give it any more credit than it's due (clue: it's due zero credit)Disparate crack/powdered cocaine sentences has been a social-issue catcall of the left for quite some time and even though it's championed under the guise of 'reform', really, it's done in furtherance of an issue that, at it's core, is nothing more than a garden variety race matter. The 'justice system' needs reform. Bad. Fucking waaaaaaaay bad and I know better than most, since I've seen things none of you have. Untangling the ethically impenetrable latticework of laws that we live under is step one, yet the only politician to address that dynamic in recent times has been Jesse Ventura. Lip-servicing an isolated, totally relative sentencing matter that has roots in racial issues- then calling it "justice reform"- is smoke-and-mirrors bullshit and hijacking an otherwise critical yet totally neglected issue to further a social agenda. I might not be the best guy to ask, though. I support the legalization of powdered cocaine, yet the death penalty for possession of grape soda or driving in a car with rims larger than 18".

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Was this keeping you up at night?

No, but the coke was.

[Jeepster80125 0]

This is a raindrop in the ocean, in that regard, and entirely token in nature so don't give it any more credit than it's due (clue: it's due zero credit)Disparate crack/powdered cocaine sentences has been a social-issue catcall of the left for quite some time and even though it's championed under the guise of 'reform', really, it's done in furtherance of an issue that, at it's core, is nothing more than a garden variety race matter. The 'justice system' needs reform. Bad. Fucking waaaaaaaay bad and I know better than most, since I've seen things none of you have. Untangling the ethically impenetrable latticework of laws that we live under is step one, yet the only politician to address that dynamic in recent times has been Jesse Ventura. Lip-servicing an isolated, totally relative sentencing matter that has roots in racial issues- then calling it "justice reform"- is smoke-and-mirrors bullshit and hijacking an otherwise critical yet totally neglected issue to further a social agenda. I might not be the best guy to ask, though. I support the legalization of powdered cocaine, yet the death penalty for possession of grape soda or driving in a car with rims larger than 18".

I'm going to go read your prison thread. Hope you are doing well with your treatment/life changes.

[El Guapo 8]

I might not be the best guy to ask, though. I support the legalization of powdered cocaine, yet the death penalty for possession of grape soda or driving in a car with rims larger than 18".

Well now that's just silly.Porsche's come stock with 19" rims.

[AmScray 355]

Well now that's just silly.Porsche's come stock with 19" rims.

I'll take "Things A Mexican Might Know Off The Top Of His Head" for $500, Alex...

[navybuttons 15]

I'll take "Things A Mexican Might Know Off The Top Of His Head" for $500, Alex...

lolo

[CaneBrain 95]

best article written about Arizona's law BY FAR:CNN) -- Despite everyone talking about Arizona's new immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, no one has asked if it was Arizona's best option. Was there no other approach to address immigration without undermining the state's economy or shredding our social fabric? Nobody had a better idea for balancing security with the draw and demand of American jobs? What about an offer to work with Congress? Was the only solution to blow up the place? It should concern everyone that no one asked these questions. If you watch the SB1070 hearings here, not a single legislator asks about or offers alternatives, although a few express "concerns." One legislator, Daniel Patterson, strongly challenged the law's sponsor, state Sen. Russell Pearce, on his immigration claims. Patterson's courage was rewarded with the loss of his committee assignment. Pearce announced he would run primary challengers against any Republican who voted against SB1070. He threatened to hold up bills sponsored by anyone who did not support SB1070. He was so hell bent on passing his immigration bill that he packed hearings with supporters and, surprise, committee chairs limited the speaking time of opponents. Even if someone had another idea, the process was set up to ignore it.So what hath SB1070 wrought? Distrust. Blame. Boycotts. Poorly worded protest signs. There's the rumored loss of 200,000 to 300,000 convention room bookings for 2011-2013. There's damage to Arizona's reputation. Hispanic citizens expect to be racially profiled. There's the potential filing of hundreds of lawsuits against state and local government agencies and big paydays for the lawyers who will try those cases. Nothing much positive so far -- but it gets worse.Simple math suggests kicking 300,000 workers out of the state means at least a $6 billion hit to Arizona's economy. Add those jobs lost in support or supply businesses and the impact could reach $29 billion annually. Don't expect the law's proponents to have a plan for replacing those lost billions with anything other than empty promises of thousands of newly available low-paying jobs and overestimated savings -- all based on a flawed report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The report ignores that undocumented workers and family members pay the very same property and sales taxes that fund Arizona's education system and the state's general fund. It ignores the contributions that children who are citizens make to the state's tax base once they enter the workforce. If undocumented worker departures open up jobs, then why is the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting Arizona's unemployment rate increased every month since SB1070 was signed into law? The bureau reports that Arizona lost 11,700 jobs from May to June and unemployment rose to 9.7 percent. We see news reports of immigrants leaving all the time, so jobs must be available. How can this be?The fact is, SB1070 is pushing out both the legal and the undocumented. They own businesses. They employ people. They pay taxes. They own homes. They spend money at stores owned by people who aren't leaving. Those businesses will lay off workers, reduce operations or close. That means fewer jobs, increased housing and commercial vacancies, depressed home values and foreclosures, and less sales, property and employment tax revenue for the state. We see it happening daily.Anyone paying attention could have seen this coming. Unfortunately, few really were. The rest were "satisficed" -- a combination of satisfied and sufficed that means settling on any solution rather than an optimal one -- that SB1070 would solve the problem, in glorious denial as to the real damage the bill is doing to Arizona.Has SB1070 solved any part of the problem? SB1070 doesn't secure the border and the unemployment figures don't indicate any improvement. It has created far more economic and social problems than it solves, but few proponents want to admit that. This is the result of not asking, "Is there a better way?"States considering mimicking SB1070 would be wise to heed warnings of adverse economic and social impacts. They would be wiser to question the "facts" SB1070 proponents trot out to support similar efforts. They would be wisest to say, "What else have you got?"Is there a better way? How about putting Ellis Island-type centers on the borders and channeling everyone looking for work through them? Employers, as in current law, would tell the government what type and how many jobs they need, ones that aren't being filled by domestic workers. Those jobs would be advertised on the internet, where interested immigrants and Americans can compete for them. Knowing the job demand, Congress could set market-based visa quotas that make sense.Instead of paying coyotes $2,500 to be smuggled into the United States, the job seekers would pay Uncle Sam to expedite the privilege. This takes billions out of the hands of smugglers and funds the solution to the problem. If 500,000 people are crossing into Arizona each year, this generates $1.25 billion to help cover the costs of building and operating these centers, with access to labor for business and better allocation of Border Patrol resources to finding drug smugglers. Read more about the proposal here.Arizonans have lived with political obsession and distortion on immigration for four years and my only suggestion to other states is: Don't follow our lead. Think of something else, because SB1070 isn't worth the economic and social trouble.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Todd Landfried.

[CaneBrain 95]

The guy behind this law, Pearce, sounds like he is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with politics.

[Jeepster80125 0]

The guy behind this law, Pearce, sounds like he is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with politics.

I think you should direct your hate to all politicians, not just the ones supporting this bill.All politicians are pieces of shit.