I Don't Understand Anyone Who Opposes The New Law

[Mike Mitrosky]

I think everyone is behind the 'constitution'. Some of us just find certain views of the constitution to be incorrect and in some cases, pretty embarrassingly so. Given that scholars have been arguing constitutional issues for hundreds of years, don't you find it a bit arrogant for anyone to think he or she "knows' what "THE CONSTITUTION" says and how it should be interpreted?

Yeah, but I dont mean to sound like *I* am superior to *YOU* as far as interpreting is concerned.. What I mean to get across is that 'WE THE PEOPLE" are the deciders on what is and what isnt constitutional.. nobody else..

But everybody seems to think its the courts who are the sole arbiter of deciding what is and what isnt constitutional.

The Supreme Court acts as the highest authority in the 3rd branch of our government---the judicial branch. Its job is to interpret the Constitution and in doing so, it decides cases in which there needs to be an important clarification in the law.

Earlier I asked if you were as dense as you looked. I withdraw my question, the answer is blatantly obvious.

The Supreme Court's job is nothing of the sort. its not supposed to interpret the constitution.. Its supposed to interpret the lower laws against the constitution. If the SCOTUS were able to "interpret the Constitution" is would be able to shape and mold the constitution anyway in which it wanted to.. (oops.. looks like thats already happened)

And the SCOTUS is no higher than the president or Congress when it comes to deciding constitutionality. They all take an oath to defend the constitution and can do so whatever they personally believe to be the best action to that end..

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Are you really as dense as you look? Let me ask this again, and I'll type slow so that maybe you can understand.

What specifically is unconstitutional about AZ's immigration law?

You remarked earlier about "reasonable suspicion" I and gave you the case history of Terry v Ohio (among others) where SCOTUS has ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.

Stop reading court cases and start reading the constitution and then make up your own mind. Stop letting judges tell you what to think. You dont let Keith Olbermann tell you what to think right? Dont let anybody.

Maybe you missed my earlier message where I said the new SB1070 that had been amended WAS constitutional. Its the original bill which was not. I am happy to see that it has been changed.

You're for ignoring the law and Supreme Court precedents because it doesn't fit your ideology?

Do you realize how hypocritical you sound? You say don't listen to the Supreme Court, (the judical branch of our government ) while at the same time you say listen to what our founding fathers say in the Constitution.

No.. not because it doesnt fit my ideology.. because it doesnt fit the constitution.

The founding fathers would be ashamed at us for what we're putting up with.

 

[hboats]

I dont care about racial profiling at all.. But I do care about violation of peoples' rights.

Even though I like the premise of the Arizona law, I cannot support it because it is unconstitutional. Im a caucasian male, and yet the law could theoretically have me arrested for failing to produce my papers even if Im minding my own business walking down a public sidewalk.

And exactly how do you figure THAT? And while you're at it, I'd be fascinated to hear how you get "Unconstitutional" out of something that was very carefully crafted with that very opposing argument in mind.

Because the law violates the 4th amendment. Like I said... Im all for illegals being deported legally.. But to make not showing one's papers a crime violates the constitution.

You're a complete moron. Immigrants are REQUIRED BY LAW to carry their "papers" on them at all times. There is nothing in this law that violates the 4th amendment. The police can not just walk up to someone and say "Show me your papers." It is clearly written in the law that there has to be some kind of "lawful contact" before that happens. Maybe you should try reading the law so that you actually know what you're talking about, because it's obvious you have no clue currently.

Rick

 

[hboats]

There was a discussion about this on this board "papers" is actually an old-fashioned term in this computer era. Police can check data bases as well if someone is not carrying their license or other form of ID. And all you need is one of several acceptable forms of ID. There are plenty of illegals with licenses. They will still be safe from the big, bad police - unless they are committing another crime - which is why people will be stopped in the first place.

Also - there are stiff penalties for police who overstep their authority. That in and of itself should prevent profiling.

As for the OP - opponents are few. They just have really big mouths.

It has already happened. A Drivers license wasnt enough and the cops demanded a guys birth certificate.. he told them it was home, so they arrested him.

the arizona law is illegal

Got a link for this "story?" As far as I know the law hasn't gone into effect yet. So if this story is true, it has NOTHING to do with the new Arizona law.

Rick

 

[Angelhair]

'I think everyone is behind the 'constitution'. Some of us just find certain views of the constitution to be incorrect and in some cases, pretty embarrassingly so. Given that scholars have been arguing constitutional issues for hundreds of years, don't you find it a bit arrogant for anyone to think he or she "knows' what "THE CONSTITUTION" says and how it should be interpreted?'

Does the U. S. Supreme Court come to mind??

 

[Angelhair]

If one is required by law to carry a driver's license when driving; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of auto insurance; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of car ownership; if one is required by FEDERAL Law, when a legal resident, to carry proof of legal residency.....what in holy heck is the problem????? Does any of the above infringe on our civil liberties?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yeah, but I dont mean to sound like *I* am superior to *YOU* as far as interpreting is concerned.. What I mean to get across is that 'WE THE PEOPLE" are the deciders on what is and what isnt constitutional.. nobody else..

But everybody seems to think its the courts who are the sole arbiter of deciding what is and what isnt constitutional.

The Supreme Court acts as the highest authority in the 3rd branch of our government---the judicial branch. Its job is to interpret the Constitution and in doing so, it decides cases in which there needs to be an important clarification in the law.

Earlier I asked if you were as dense as you looked. I withdraw my question, the answer is blatantly obvious.

The Supreme Court's job is nothing of the sort. its not supposed to interpret the constitution.. Its supposed to interpret the lower laws against the constitution. If the SCOTUS were able to "interpret the Constitution" is would be able to shape and mold the constitution anyway in which it wanted to.. (oops.. looks like thats already happened)

And the SCOTUS is no higher than the president or Congress when it comes to deciding constitutionality. They all take an oath to defend the constitution and can do so whatever they personally believe to be the best action to that end..

Isn't that the same as interpreting?

 

[froggy]

Some think Immigrants/illegals have more right than the average American.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Stop reading court cases and start reading the constitution and then make up your own mind. Stop letting judges tell you what to think. You dont let Keith Olbermann tell you what to think right? Dont let anybody.

Maybe you missed my earlier message where I said the new SB1070 that had been amended WAS constitutional. Its the original bill which was not. I am happy to see that it has been changed.

You're for ignoring the law and Supreme Court precedents because it doesn't fit your ideology?

Do you realize how hypocritical you sound? You say don't listen to the Supreme Court, (the judical branch of our government ) while at the same time you say listen to what our founding fathers say in the Constitution.

No.. not because it doesnt fit my ideology.. because it doesnt fit the constitution.

The founding fathers would be ashamed at us for what we're putting up with.

So now you're speaking for the founding fathers? What are you some kind of clairvoyant?

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

If one is required by law to carry a driver's license when driving; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of auto insurance; if one is required by law to have in your possession proof of car ownership; if one is required by FEDERAL Law, when a legal resident, to carry proof of legal residency.....what in holy heck is the problem????? Does any of the above infringe on our civil liberties?

IM a legal resident. I was born here. Im a citizen.

I do not have to carry any sort of proof on me.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

You're for ignoring the law and Supreme Court precedents because it doesn't fit your ideology?

Do you realize how hypocritical you sound? You say don't listen to the Supreme Court, (the judical branch of our government ) while at the same time you say listen to what our founding fathers say in the Constitution.

No.. not because it doesnt fit my ideology.. because it doesnt fit the constitution.

The founding fathers would be ashamed at us for what we're putting up with.

So now you're speaking for the founding fathers? What are you some kind of clairvoyant?

Have you ever read the constitution or the declaration of independence?

Theyre not written in Chinese. Theyre in English. Just read them.

IMO the main problem we have as Americans is that we get bombarded by so much bullshit from everybody.. TV, Radio, Newspapers, political pundits, spin doctors, bullshit politicians who lie, cheat and steal.

I tell everybody the same thing. Just unplug themselves from all media exposure for a week. Then go back and listen. You will find your critical thinking ability greatly improved.

 

[Terral]

Hi Zona:

Legal Mexicans who will be asked for their paperz.

This "Show Your Papers" stupidity is nothing more than Open Border Lobby Disinformation Propaganda that helps unscrupulous American Employers continue 'hiring' Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals from the 20 to 30 Million-man Illegal Alien Labor Pool.

They will look just as illegal until they produce them and that is not the America I know.

Bullony! Every "American" stopped by the cops must show his State-provided Driver's License!!!! Zona is pretending that Illegal Aliens are free to steal American JOBS and steal American identities and drive anywhere they wish without ever having to show their driver's license to anyone!!! This is NONSENSE!!! God forbid that Illegal Aliens should have to show their driver's license like EVERY AMERICAN IN THE USA!!!!

The Open Border Lobby spends billions of dollars every year bribing our corrupt politicians and filling the Media airwaves with this 'paperz' NONSENSE, as if Arizona has NO RIGHT to pass its own laws through the duly elected 'legal' American politicians! However, if the out-of-control Fascist Obama Regime would simply ENFORCE the perfectly good Immigration and Employment Laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, then Arizona would have no need to pass these State Immigration Laws making it Illegal to be in the State of Arizona ILLEGALLY!

The New Arizona Immigration Law is GOOD for Arizona masons, carpenters, dry-wallers, painters and their helpers. The base of the socioeconomic pyramid will see higher wages, because Arizona Tradesmen and their apprentices will no longer have to compete against 20 to 30 Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals living in one house! The local American Consumer Base will have more disposable income and more real Arizona Citizens will be able to afford their house payments, avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy, and regain their ability to support local schools by paying their property taxes.

We should expect the number of Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals in Arizona to decrease, as the rats run from that State into neighboring States where the number of Illegal Aliens will go UP for sure. I say let's send all the Illegal Aliens to California to destroy their local job markets and tax bases and for free health care in California Hospitals. That is exactly what the Sanctuary State of California deserves ...

GL,

Terral

 

[jillian]

Does the U. S. Supreme Court come to mind??

And even they don't agree... ever hear of a 5 to 4 decision?

I'm sure you thought that was pithy, though.

 

[sitarro]

I am not fooling myself, I will never accept that I have to carry PAPERS, like Nazi Germany, in order to walk down the street.....NEVER!

It's adorable how all of you leftist apologist have adopted the same tactic of calling legal identification........"papers". Are you people actually saying that the police officers of this country are a bunch of Nazis or just trying to make it look like they are? Go anywhere in the world and get stopped by the police for breaking the law, see what they ask for.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Christ people!....Knock it off with the "they're going to be ARRESTED" crap.

Nobody is going to be arrested for not providing ''papers". They will simply be DETAINED until proof is shown.

The ignorance of so many up here is absolutely amazing. It's a ten page law. Read it, or simply STFU already!

 

[froggy]

Besides when they give false id a fraudulent charge will be added. State and federal crime.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I dont care about racial profiling at all.. But I do care about violation of peoples' rights.

Even though I like the premise of the Arizona law, I cannot support it because it is unconstitutional. Im a caucasian male, and yet the law could theoretically have me arrested for failing to produce my papers even if Im minding my own business walking down a public sidewalk.

And exactly how do you figure THAT? And while you're at it, I'd be fascinated to hear how you get "Unconstitutional" out of something that was very carefully crafted with that very opposing argument in mind.

Because the law violates the 4th amendment. Like I said... Im all for illegals being deported legally.. But to make not showing one's papers a crime violates the constitution.

And HOW does it violate the 4th Amendment? Just for the record, I have no intention of dragging this explanation out of you like I'm trying to pull hen's teeth. This is the last opportunity I'm giving you to explain your position instead of giving me vague, throwaway lines. After this, I'm just going to assume you're bullshitting and parroting some TV talking head.

And no one has "made it a crime not to show papers". That would be the essence of my "where did you get THAT?" question, in that you're supposing something has happened which hasn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There was a discussion about this on this board "papers" is actually an old-fashioned term in this computer era. Police can check data bases as well if someone is not carrying their license or other form of ID. And all you need is one of several acceptable forms of ID. There are plenty of illegals with licenses. They will still be safe from the big, bad police - unless they are committing another crime - which is why people will be stopped in the first place.

Also - there are stiff penalties for police who overstep their authority. That in and of itself should prevent profiling.

As for the OP - opponents are few. They just have really big mouths.

It has already happened. A Drivers license wasnt enough and the cops demanded a guys birth certificate.. he told them it was home, so they arrested him.

the arizona law is illegal

Prove it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems some people have come on here to bitch about how anti american this law is without knowing anything about it, come on people knowing is half the battle!!!

1. Will SB1070 force police to racially profile?

SB1070 says police cannot solely consider race, color or national origin.

It also says officers can only ask during a valid traffic stop or an investigation with probable cause.

In short, for those who say it allows officers to profile... it doesn't.

2. Will you need to prove that you are a U.S. citizen if you are stopped?

The bill is clear, if you're a U.S. citizen you need local, state or federally issued identification, like a driver's license.

If you're a naturalized citizen you need your green card or proof of citizenship. But that's already required by the U.S. government, not Arizona.

So do you need proof? Yes.

3. Another concern is if SB1070 will cost governments and taxpayers.

The law will require every officer to be trained. The governor just ordered it.

There will also be extra costs for prosectuing, transporting and jailing suspects.

How much? Police and correction departments are still figuring that out, but it will cost us.

4. Other issues have come up about if the bill is constitutional and if it "mirrors" federal law.

The bill is based on U.S. statutes and gives Arizona police the power that federal officers have.

It's not a new idea. In 1996, the U.S. trained local officers to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program.

This bill is a bigger extension of that program.

Is federal immigration law different from Arizona's new law? - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com

Read the actual bill and not somebody's explanation of the bill. Go to the 2nd page and read lines 20-22... Thats where I have a problem with it.

Like I said.. a citizen was already arrested for showing his DL but not having his birth certificate.. and thats without the law even technically taking effect yet. If you want to see the video.. Ill be happy to show you

You said, you said, you said. And I'm taking your word for it because why? Proof, Sparky. Let's see some.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here is that link to Bill 1070 that the Arizona Governor signed last moth. At the top of the page it will tell you what the colored text is all about. She sent it back once for changes before she would sign it. HERE

I take it this is the new bill with the changes? I havent read this one yet, and will have to do so. Appreciate the link.

You mean to tell me that you've been in here issuing pronouncements about how the law is "Unconstitutional", and you haven't even read it?!