I Don't Understand Anyone Who Opposes The New Law

[Mike Mitrosky]

Looks unconstitutional?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You cannot be serious!

Okay how about definitely, 100% unequivocally unconstitutional!

Well you can say it all day long but you haven't provided anything to support your claim of unconstitutionality.

How about some specifics or some case history?

I got something better.. the 4th amendment to the constitution.. and I posted it earlier.

 

[jillian]

That's not true. If it was true, I would agree with you. Seems to me, you've been misled by the media.... The media misleading people.... that's something that doesn't happen much... except that it does happen every day.

so if you don't agree then it must not be true, hon? hmmmmmmmmm....

you have to look at the actual effect of a law to see how it can be applied and misapplied before you can draw the conclusion that you do.

and you're not... you're stopping at the words on the page and not thinking about the potential abuses.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
__________________
A warrant has to be ISSUED!!! And by whom? A JUDGE calls it! The cops in AZ are not going to be given a search warrant carte blanche! Geez people, CHILL.

Search warrant, in law, written order by an official of a court authorizing an officer to search in a specified place for specified objects and to seize them if found. The objects sought may be stolen goods or physical evidences of the commission of crime (e.g., narcotics). The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, provides, in effect, that a search warrant may be issued only on oath or affirmation that a crime was probably committed. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961) the U.S. Supreme Court mandated states to exclude from trial evidence obtained in illegal searches, such as those without a proper warrant. This exclusionary rule has been the subject of great controversy and subsequent litigation. In recent years, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the rule, in many circumstances permitting the introduction of any evidence gathered in good faith. Courts have ruled that a wiretap and the use of a thermal-imaging device to examine a private home from a public street constitutes a search that requires a warrant. Warrants are not required for the gathering of evidence in some circumstances. These exceptions include evidence gathered after a lawful arrest, inspections by customs or border officials, searches made with the suspect's consent, searches of items in plain view, and searches of the belongings of secondary students on school property.
The Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 2001-09 Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Thank you Angelhair... I really do not understand why some people just cant get behind the constitution instead of getting behind their political party or pet politicians

 

[Nate]

Okay how about definitely, 100% unequivocally unconstitutional!

Well you can say it all day long but you haven't provided anything to support your claim of unconstitutionality.

How about some specifics or some case history?

I got something better.. the 4th amendment to the constitution.. and I posted it earlier.

So how does this;

Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous or erratic behavior, dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship, and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens

Go against the 4th amendment?

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained

Or even better how do you define "probable cause?"

 

[StoneageHippy]

Racial profiling was quite rampant during the 60's but it did not stop Lee Harvey Oswald from killing JFK.

 

[jillian]

Thank you Angelhair... I really do not understand why some people just cant get behind the constitution instead of getting behind their political party or pet politicians

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?

 

[GHook93]

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?

Very true, like most people find the birthright clause incorrect! However, its in the constitution and should be followed, until later amendments change it. Note: I also don't like the sufferage for 18 yr olds. They don't have enough life experience to make a rational and educated vote. Just my 2 cents.

 

[GHook93]

Racial profiling was quite rampant during the 60's but it did not stop Lee Harvey Oswald from killing JFK.

LOL, as a hippie, I'm shocked that you believe the official story! There is no method to stop every crime and in AZ its not racially profiling, its seeking out and illegals!

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Thank you Angelhair... I really do not understand why some people just cant get behind the constitution instead of getting behind their political party or pet politicians

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.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Okay how about definitely, 100% unequivocally unconstitutional!

Well you can say it all day long but you haven't provided anything to support your claim of unconstitutionality.

How about some specifics or some case history?

I got something better.. the 4th amendment to the constitution.. and I posted it earlier.

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I always carry an ID, it's just not a big deal, people that have a problem with it obviously have something to hide. What do you have to hide Zona?

they might find out he is an idiot....

 

[jillian]

Thank you Angelhair... I really do not understand why some people just cant get behind the constitution instead of getting behind their political party or pet politicians

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.

oh...i wasn't referring to you specifically. apologies if you thought that. but this board is so full of fake constitutionalists that it's kind of funny.

i am, however, going to refer you to Marbury v. Madison.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And in response to your 'we the people' comment, if that were true, then the majority would be determining the appropriate interpretation of the constitution and what laws are constitutional and unconstitutional. yet, that can't be correct because one of the primary purposes of the constitution is to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority. If it were put to a vote, segregation would still be approved by voters in many parts of this country. Yet, segregation certainly isn't constitutional.

It IS the court that is the final arbiter of constitutionality because that is the only way to effectuate the mandates of the constitution. They are not always correct (see Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott) but their errors ultimately get corrected.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Well you can say it all day long but you haven't provided anything to support your claim of unconstitutionality.

How about some specifics or some case history?

I got something better.. the 4th amendment to the constitution.. and I posted it earlier.

So how does this;

Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous or erratic behavior, dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship, and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens

Go against the 4th amendment?

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained

Or even better how do you define "probable cause?"

I put the part in red that contradicts.. and the other stuff about somebodys dress being grounds for interrogating is plain silly.

Ill even give probable cause the nod when theres evidence a crime has been committed. But without evidence or a warrant there is no probable cause

 

[Lonestar_logic]

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
__________________
A warrant has to be ISSUED!!! And by whom? A JUDGE calls it! The cops in AZ are not going to be given a search warrant carte blanche! Geez people, CHILL.

Search warrant, in law, written order by an official of a court authorizing an officer to search in a specified place for specified objects and to seize them if found. The objects sought may be stolen goods or physical evidences of the commission of crime (e.g., narcotics). The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, provides, in effect, that a search warrant may be issued only on oath or affirmation that a crime was probably committed. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961) the U.S. Supreme Court mandated states to exclude from trial evidence obtained in illegal searches, such as those without a proper warrant. This exclusionary rule has been the subject of great controversy and subsequent litigation. In recent years, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the rule, in many circumstances permitting the introduction of any evidence gathered in good faith. Courts have ruled that a wiretap and the use of a thermal-imaging device to examine a private home from a public street constitutes a search that requires a warrant. Warrants are not required for the gathering of evidence in some circumstances. These exceptions include evidence gathered after a lawful arrest, inspections by customs or border officials, searches made with the suspect's consent, searches of items in plain view, and searches of the belongings of secondary students on school property.
The Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 2001-09 Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Oh please don't be like these other idiots and read Terry v Ohio where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime.

If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Well you can say it all day long but you haven't provided anything to support your claim of unconstitutionality.

How about some specifics or some case history?

I got something better.. the 4th amendment to the constitution.. and I posted it earlier.

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.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Thank you Angelhair... I really do not understand why some people just cant get behind the constitution instead of getting behind their political party or pet politicians

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.

 

[jillian]

I got something better.. the 4th amendment to the constitution.. and I posted it earlier.

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.

I agree with lonestar on very little. but what you SHOULD be reading is the caselaw... NOT just the constitution. We are a common law country... not a 'code state' like France, both statutes and caselaw form our body of law.

The system of laws originated and developed in England and based on court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than on codified written laws.

common law: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

so while your view may be interesting, it isn't the sytsem under which we live or the one we were intended to live under.

 

[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.

oh...i wasn't referring to you specifically. apologies if you thought that. but this board is so full of fake constitutionalists that it's kind of funny.

i am, however, going to refer you to Marbury v. Madison.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And in response to your 'we the people' comment, if that were true, then the majority would be determining the appropriate interpretation of the constitution and what laws are constitutional and unconstitutional. yet, that can't be correct because one of the primary purposes of the constitution is to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority. If it were put to a vote, segregation would still be approved by voters in many parts of this country. Yet, segregation certainly isn't constitutional.

It IS the court that is the final arbiter of constitutionality because that is the only way to effectuate the mandates of the constitution. They are not always correct (see Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott) but their errors ultimately get corrected.

Since you brought up Marbury v. Madison... Are you are aware that Jefferson ignored the court's decision?

I dont believe it is the court that is the final arbiter of constitutionality - but the jury. However we have a big problem in America with education. Juries are allowed to nullify any law they disagree with.. but most people arent even aware of this.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I got something better.. the 4th amendment to the constitution.. and I posted it earlier.

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.

 

[froggy]

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

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.

The constitution says nothing about 'reasonable suspicion' only probable cause. Just because somebody's been using 'reasonable suspicion' as some 'accepted process' doesnt make it right or constitutional...

The problem with this law is that it violates peoples' privacy...Now, I like Jan Brewer.. I do. and I like all the other laws Arizona has done to exert its 10th amendment rights.. But imagine the next governor of Arizona is Mexican and wants to use this law to hassle white people..

Its like my Republican friends who are horrified on learning that the feds under obama can look up their medical records without a warrant.. When they ask me where Obama got such power from I tell them - the Patriot Act under George Bush.

What the constitution says or doesn't say, its the law that has to be obeyed or changed.