Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Perhaps not so doomed to fail.
Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona.
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
I guess the rule of law means nothing to the liberal members of the current court.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the rule of law means nothing to the liberal members of the current court.
But really it's just the 10th amendment they hate so badly, BG. Let's not throw the entire "rule of law" out there. Let's just delete #10.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This administration reminds me of a bunch of teenage kids running wild, they have no thought or concern for what they are doing it just feels good…then parents come home and bitch slap them all back into reality, cut off the money and ground them for months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
QUOTE (Pot Odds RAC @ Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 3:57 PM)Perhaps not so doomed to fail.Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona.
I never understand flaming lib jews.Seriously could you explain how a jew can side with a party that is openly hostile to IsraelNevermind I just answered my own question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
The "Show us your papers" part of this law was upheld by the SCOTUS
depending on how they enforce it. I have faith that Sheriff Joe will screw that up too.But, I'm surprised Arizona was able to win on anything. Constitutional law is just changing all over the place this last couple years.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's What The Supreme Court's Arizona Immigration Ruling REALLY MeansRead more: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-arizona-immigration-decision-2012-6#ixzz1yperjJ1jthe Supreme Court sided mostly with the federal government. The Obama administration didn't get all of its wishes, but three of the four key provisions were ruled unconstitutional. Here's what the Supreme Court struck down, ruling that these provisions were preempted by federal immigration law:

  • Making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to not carry and possess their federal registration cards.
  • Making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or apply for work, or solicit work in a public place.
  • Allowing state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant with probable cause when they committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."

But the law's most controversial provision — the "papers please" provision that requires law enforcement officials to check the legal status of detained and arrested people with reasonable suspicion — was left standing, a ruling that favors Arizona.But the Supreme Court didn't exactly "uphold" the provision — it simply said there is not enough information to determine whether it conflicts with federal law.Here's the key part of the ruling:The Federal Government has brought suit against a sovereign State to challenge the provision even before the law has gone into effect. There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.Translation: We need to see how the law is practiced and enforced before we decide whether this state law conflicts with federal immigration law. But the court did leave their opinion open, saying it "does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-arizona-immigration-decision-2012-6#ixzz1ypf4ltvl

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this decision has left things more confused than before. That's what happens when you start with a bad law and have a Supreme Court that doesn't have any fundamental belief system -- you just get random sort of nonsense.In the end, vigilantes like Sheriff Joe are not going to solve the immigration problem, and the current solution of having an economy that really really sucks is not permanent. It will eventually have to be dealt with in a realistic and moral fashion or this problem will continue forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balloon guy @ Thursday, September 2nd, 2010, 12:51 PM)Well, more people die each year on our border than in all the years of the Berlin Wall, and once upon a time people thought the wall was inhumane.....
Irony on parade here.Less died on the berlin wall, cause it was well guarded.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

The idea that someone should have some sort of ID is outrageous and unamerican.

 

Like in order to cash a check, fly on a plane, rent a car, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, drive a car, attend a school, rent an apartment,etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have ID or money in your pocket you can get arrested for vagrancy in most places in this country.

 

 

I think the people who are against the "papers please" law would be against that law as well. But thank you for pointing out another bad law (if it exists, which I actually doubt).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the people who are against the "papers please" law would be against that law as well. But thank you for pointing out another bad law (if it exists, which I actually doubt).

 

Vagrancy laws?

 

Did you not see Rambo? That's what they arrested him for before they hosed him down.

 

 

Man LLY...Rambo.....its like required before you get your man card.

 

You DO want your man card don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I dont get why being able to id yourself to law enforcement is bad law.

 

Because it removes a citizen's right: the right to not carry a wallet. I thought conservatives were against removing rights for little gain. If everyone needs to carry an id, and I go out for a walk and don't bring my wallet, should I be liable for arrest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it removes a citizen's right: the right to not carry a wallet. I thought conservatives were against removing rights for little gain. If everyone needs to carry an id, and I go out for a walk and don't bring my wallet, should I be liable for arrest?

oK then if having ID is bad law, then I should be able to buy guns without having to prove who I am.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...