Obama Commits acts of High Treason

ILTST9ILTST9 Regular
edited November 2010 in Spurious Generalities
Instead of sending troops to help protect the undermanned Arizona borders, it appears Obama is trying to make them appear like border fascists and suing them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/justice-department-arizon_n_636431.html
The Obama administration sued Arizona on Tuesday to throw out the state's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law and keep other states from copying it.
Look at the US Constitution and tell me this isn't High Treason
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
«13

Comments

  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    I agree with this. The constitution was written for and this country was founded on the rights of the state. The reason we left England was because the people had no say hence America being formed. The fact is whether obama likes it or not if the federal government wont do its job then the state has the right to take action. I find it ironic that he challenges this law as being unconstitutional when the lawsuit itself is whats constitutional. Also we are a representative republic the government is here to act on the peoples will and polls show up to 70 percent of Americans and even most Hispanics support this bill and believe something has to be done about immigration.
  • NightsideNightside Regular
    edited July 2010
    I recall them passing a law quickly to make it illegal to go within a certain mile of the infected gulf beaches. I mean, makes sense... but it was done without anyones knowledge.

    Bye bye amendments.
  • edited July 2010
    I agree with this. The constitution was written for and this country was founded on the rights of the state. The reason we left England was because the people had no say hence America being formed. The fact is whether obama likes it or not if the federal government wont do its job then the state has the right to take action. I find it ironic that he challenges this law as being unconstitutional when the lawsuit itself is whats constitutional. Also we are a representative republic the government is here to act on the peoples will and polls show up to 70 percent of Americans and even most Hispanics support this bill and believe something has to be done about immigration.

    It wasn't "founded" on the rights of the states or of the federal government. There are limits to what each can do, and immigration law falls outside of what a state is constitutionally allowed to do. If anything, it's Obama's responsibility to strike down this law. It's funny, Obama does something according to the constitution and the right is still pissy about it.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    Obama should be allowed to remove the fascist/ racist governor of Arizona, considering the circumstances. I don't see anyone calling him on this really.

    Then again I do know how ingrained American politics are in the concept of the state's right to self-governance and in all honesty I would have hated to see George Bush extending his power in this way. I can only imagine how Republicans feel about this..
  • ILTST9ILTST9 Regular
    edited July 2010
    Before somebody posts here bawwing about how evil the immigration bill is here's my argument beforehand. I'm assuming that the above post stating that the AZ governor should be removed is also a result of this bill, unless you have an example other than the immigration bill you'd like to point out.

    1) All they are doing here is making an ALREADY EXISTING unenforced federal law a state law. So this law has been around for 60 years already.

    2) I have no problem with legal immigration, but if you are here illegally YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE, and the only people this bill effects are ILLEGAL immigrants. The media has blown it way out of proportion. Nobody is going to get stopped walking down the street. It requires lawful contact and reasonable suspicion.

    Illegal immigration is a serious problem and I hope more states follow Arizona's lead. I also encourage everybody who is going off what the media says to actually read the bill. Attorney General Eric Holder didn't, apparently.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    It wasn't "founded" on the rights of the states or of the federal government. There are limits to what each can do, and immigration law falls outside of what a state is constitutionally allowed to do. If anything, it's Obama's responsibility to strike down this law. It's funny, Obama does something according to the constitution and the right is still pissy about it.

    First off I dont consider myself a part of the "right" Second look at the bill of rights it mostly applys to the people and limiting the federal goverment. We were founded n the principal that if the goverment fails to act to for the peoples will we have a right to change that. Therefore the states DO have the right to control there own border and apprehend crimnals if the feds wont. And the illegals are criminals just by beng here.

    Yes the constitution does limit what the state and federal government can do but nowhere does it mention they cant control illegal immigration. Also have you read the law? I have and its actually more lenient than the federal immigration laws. The fact is the founders left England because of the central government being to powerful. Its unfortunate that so many have forgotten this country's founding principals. And no im not a republican Im a strict constitutionalist.
  • GreenbullGreenbull Regular
    edited July 2010
    Unbelievable. I'm curious what his solution is.
  • edited July 2010
    Then again I do know how ingrained American politics are in the concept of the state's right to self-governance and in all honesty I would have hated to see George Bush extending his power in this way. I can only imagine how Republicans feel about this..

    But people need to understand, this isn't being done because Obama is some evil son of a bitch who wants to fill Arizona with Mexicans or anything like that. It's not a response to a law that the administration doesn't agree with, it's a law that they, nor any lawmaker guided by the U.S. constitution can agree with and cannot allow.

    For some reason, people are painting this (As they would) to be another example of the tyrannical, big-government Obama administration abusing it's power and oppressing a state, which is lol.
    First off I dont consider myself a part of the "right" Second look at the bill of rights it mostly applys to the people and limiting the federal goverment. We were founded n the principal that if the goverment fails to act to for the peoples will we have a right to change that. Therefore the states DO have the right to control there own border and apprehend crimnals if the feds wont. And the illegals are criminals just by beng here.

    Okay, the bill of rights is not the only set of laws that matter. You're also simplifying this argument too much. You can't just point to part of the bill of rights that supports individual freedom and then claim that it justifies states making their own immigration laws. Certain powers are given to states, and certain powers are given to the federal government. Passing laws to regulate immigration falls under the rights and responsibilities of the federal government.
    Yes the constitution does limit what the state and federal government can do but nowhere does it mention they cant control illegal immigration. Also have you read the law? I have and its actually more lenient than the federal immigration laws. The fact is the founders left England because of the central government being to powerful. Its unfortunate that so many have forgotten this country's founding principals

    It does say that they're not allowed to regulate immigration. It says it right in there. In Article 1, Section 8 (Where the powers of Congress are laid out) of the United States constitution it reads that Congress "Shall have the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."

    This has been interpreted since the very founding of the country as meaning that the states do not have the right to establish immigration laws, as there is meant to be a single, uniform set of laws regarding immigration for the entire country, not varied ones from state to state.
    . And no im not a republican Im a strict constitutionalist.

    Lul
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    [QUOTE=

    It says it right in there. In Article 1, Section 8 (Where the powers of Congress are laid out) of the United States constitution it reads that Congress "Shall have the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."

    This has been interpreted since the very founding of the country as meaning that the states do not have the right to establish immigration laws, as there is meant to be a single, uniform set of laws regarding immigration for the entire country, not varied ones from state to state.
    [/QUOTE]

    Heres what your not getting this law says nothing about the naturalization process. Nowhere does it decide who becomes legal. Again have you read the law? The thing is if your an illegal alien your by definition a criminal illegal is in the name. Are you seriously trying to tell me the constitution doesn't allow a state to arrest criminals? Especially if the federal government wont. These people are committing crime like crazy and there very prescense is a crime. I don't see what people cant understand about that. In reality its not even really an immigration law in the truer sense of the word. Its just a bill that allows the arrest of criminals.
  • edited July 2010
    Heres what your not getting this law says nothing about the naturalization process.

    Right, but what you don't understand is that "Rule of Naturalization" has been interpreted to mean all immigration law.
    Nowhere does it decide who becomes legal. Again have you read the law? The thing is if your an illegal alien your by definition a criminal illegal is in the name. Are you seriously trying to tell me the constitution doesn't allow a state to arrest criminals? Especially if the federal government wont. These people are committing crime like crazy and there very prescense is a crime. I don't see what people cant understand about that. In reality its not even really an immigration law in the truer sense of the word. Its just a bill that allows the arrest of criminals.

    What I'm saying is that this law pertains to immigration in a way that a state law cannot constitutionally pertain, and that is why this suit has been brought against Arizona. I'm sure that you and many others are confused right now, as you've been told again and again that America is set up so that States have these sorts of powers, but they do not. As prescribed by the constitution, states are allowed to pass laws on certain things, and on others they are not. Immigration being a national issue, the constitution does not allow each state to have it's own policies regarding immigration or immigrants.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    They don't have the right to say who becomes a citizen that's true but they do have the right to arrest people committing a crime. And since its a crime to be here without proper papers hence the words illegal immigration then they have a right to stop it. Its less of an immigration law and more of a law to reinforce already existing laws. Obama is making this into a bigger deal then it is so he can secure the Hispanic vote.
  • edited July 2010
    They don't have the right to say who becomes a citizen that's true but they do have the right to arrest people committing a crime. And since its a crime to be here without proper papers hence the words illegal immigration then they have a right to stop it. Its less of an immigration law and more of a law to reinforce already existing laws.

    This is a tired argument.

    Who is right and who is wrong will be determined (For you, anyway) when the law is taken to court and reviewed as to it's constitutionality.
    Obama is making this into a bigger deal then it is so he can secure the Hispanic vote.

    And that's precisely what this is being played off as to the public. He has a responsibility to take this to court if it appears to be unconstitutional.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    This is a tired argument.

    Who is right and who is wrong will be determined (For you, anyway) when the law is taken to court and reviewed as to it's constitutionality.



    And that's precisely what this is being played off as to the public. He has a responsibility to take this to court if it appears to be unconstitutional.

    Eric Holder was already talking about challenging this before he even read the bill. He had it out for this bill since day one so hispanics would support them. Thats why he supports amnesty.
  • edited July 2010
    Eric Holder was already talking about challenging this before he even read the bill.

    He was talking about challenging this bill before he read it because he knew that it pertained to immigration and immigrants, and states are not allowed to pass those sorts of laws.
    He had it out for this bill since day one so hispanics would support them. Thats why he supports amnesty.

    Faggot, if anything, Hispanics would be pissed at anyone trying to give illegals an easy way into the country (Most often citing the fact that they had to go through waiting lists and other the obstacles that come with legal immigration, making amnesty unfair). This isn't about wanting immigrants to like him, it's about a state overstepping its constitutional rights.

    You're either one dense fuck or you're trolling me pretty well.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    He was talking about challenging this bill before he read it because he knew that it pertained to immigration and immigrants, and states are not allowed to pass those sorts of laws.



    Faggot, if anything, Hispanics would be pissed at anyone trying to give illegals an easy way into the country (Most often citing the fact that they had to go through waiting lists and other the obstacles that come with legal immigration, making amnesty unfair). This isn't about wanting immigrants to like him, it's about a state overstepping its constitutional rights.

    You're either one dense fuck or you're trolling me pretty well.

    Think about it we have millions of illegals in this country. If he isn't just out looking for there vote then why has he already proposed amnesty for illegals. Also what choice did Arizona have since obamas administration and bush's for that matter refuse to enforce the federal laws. They cant just let these people come over the border unchecked and do nothing about it. Obamas shown time and time again to be an afro centrist and a socialist whos quickly losing favor so he needs the illegal vote. I think your the one being dense about the whole issue.
  • edited July 2010
    obamas shown time and time again to be an afro centrist and a socialist whos quickly losing favor so he needs the illegal vote.

    Trool.gif
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Trool.gif

    you get defeated by superior arguments so thats all you can post?
  • edited July 2010
    you get defeated by superior arguments so thats all you can post?

    I posted that picture to signify that I can't take you seriously after you posted that, and that I believe you have successfully trolled me.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Im not trolling you simply look at the church he attended for years. It was a completly anti white afro centric church. He appointed Van Jones an admitted communist as the green jobs czar. Bill Airs of the weather underground is a close friend of his adn another communist. Listen to his wifes racist college thesis I stand by what I said and the fact that overturning this bill and pushing for amnesty is all part of his plan to wipe his ass with the constitution and radically push us towards socialism. How you cant see this is beyond me.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    But people need to understand, this isn't being done because Obama is some evil son of a bitch who wants to fill Arizona with Mexicans or anything like that. It's not a response to a law that the administration doesn't agree with, it's a law that they, nor any lawmaker guided by the U.S. constitution can agree with and cannot allow.

    Yeah it's kind of like if Arizona broke into the building that holds the constitution and spit on it then tore it in half. Might as well not have the fuckin' thing at all if any state can just disregard it's status as the document securing all facets of law and order as related to human justice in the United States. Or maybe in the future they can just follow some parts of it and not others, like the with the Bible :rolleyes:
  • edited July 2010
    Yeah it's kind of like if Arizona broke into the building that holds the constitution and spit on it then tore it in half. Might as well not have the fuckin' thing at all if any state can just disregard it's status as the document securing all facets of law and order as related to human justice in the United States. Or maybe in the future they can just follow some parts of it and not others, like the with the Bible :rolleyes:

    I personally don't give much of a shit. I don't think the law does very much to begin with. I'm just explaining that it was inevitable that this law would be challenged, and it will probably end up being stricken down.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    Hey it ain't even my country brah!

    If it were I'd be busting domes tho lol your legal and civil liberties are being extremely threatened here if you're American nervous-man-1.jpg

    edit: also, from cnn
    CNN wrote:
    Want your state to pass a similar immigration law?
    47% Yes
    32% No

    just saw that, came downstairs and decided to add it. I'm not claiming mass hysteria but clearly there is a force provoking a lot of people to endorse race-based harassment, despite it's conflicting with the constitution.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Hey it ain't even my country brah!

    If it were I'd be busting domes tho lol your legal and civil liberties are being extremely threatened here if you're American nervous-man-1.jpg

    edit: also, from cnn



    just saw that, came downstairs and decided to add it. I'm not claiming mass hysteria but clearly there is a force provoking a lot of people to endorse race-based harassment, despite it's conflicting with the constitution.

    It isnt race based harrasment it just allows federal immigration laws to be enforced.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    It's unarguably race-based since they're targeting Hispanics. What's next, 'terrorist checks' for Muslims? Oh wait they do that, I guess we can scratch 2 denominations off the list of people to oppress now.

    Yes they're both measures to deal with serious problems. Only thing is, the ways that they are dealing with this problem are unconstitutional. If you're ok with that then I won't argue the point to try and convince you otherwise.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Yes they use race to profile them but its not racist harassment. The fact is most immigrants are beaners but that dosn't mean there's gonna be gestapo style harassment. Why are people so concerned with the rights of people who come here and don't pay taxes take peoples jobs and are 80% of the time convicted felons. Arizona has the right to defend itself and if you ask me there not being hard enough on these immigrants.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    It's a law which could end up deporting innocent Americans to a place where they can not return home and have no means of survival. On the basis of race at that. Not that 'coulds' should be the underlying factor in deciding anything; and besides that, the illegals don't have 'rights' per se in America anyway. Even still there's no reason to break the constitution but for the sake of doing it, when the realm of options here are so endless. I don't like it.
  • GreenbullGreenbull Regular
    edited July 2010
    It's a law which could end up deporting innocent Americans to a place where they can not return home and have no means of survival. On the basis of race at that. Not that 'coulds' should be the underlying factor in deciding anything; and besides that, the illegals don't have 'rights' per se in America anyway. Even still there's no reason to break the constitution but for the sake of doing it, when the realm of options here are so endless. I don't like it.
    Can I ask what you base this on?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    It's a law which could end up deporting innocent Americans to a place where they can not return home and have no means of survival. On the basis of race at that. Not that 'coulds' should be the underlying factor in deciding anything; and besides that, the illegals don't have 'rights' per se in America anyway. Even still there's no reason to break the constitution but for the sake of doing it, when the realm of options here are so endless. I don't like it.

    You do relize if your proven to be legal you wont be deported right?:rolleyes: There gonna check all that before any deportation. Also how hard is it to keep a green card on you or in the car. You do it with a drivers license im sure.
  • GallowsGallows Regular
    edited July 2010
    It's unarguably race-based since they're targeting Hispanics. What's next, 'terrorist checks' for Muslims? Oh wait they do that, I guess we can scratch 2 denominations off the list of people to oppress now.

    While you're at it, scratch whites and Asians off the 'people to oppress list' as well, since they both need a 4.5+ GPA to get into UCLA, while Mexicans and blacks only need to be around 3.0. In my opinion, an unfair rejection from a university is far worse than having to endure a 30 second security screening or the inconvenience of showing documentation. Four years down the drain vs. thirty seconds down the drain. Hm.
  • GreenbullGreenbull Regular
    edited July 2010
    You do relize if your proven to be legal you wont be deported right?:rolleyes: There gonna check all that before any deportation. Also how hard is it to keep a green card on you or in the car. You do it with a drivers license im sure.

    IIRC a license is a form of residency.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    You do relize if your proven to be legal you wont be deported right?:rolleyes:
    Well yes lol. I'm not even really arguing against the process, but the means. As I stated, measures which don't violate the constitution are virtually endless, where as this one is lazy and racist.
    There gonna check all that before any deportation. Also how hard is it to keep a green card on you or in the car. You do it with a drivers license im sure.
    Yea true, you gotta do it with a drivers license. Still, what's gonna happen next? When shit like this happens, no body can tell you because it's unprecedented (that a politician should be able to draft legislation which is entirely non-constitutional). George Bush did the same only in that case it was a potential for millions of lives being lost driving him to do so. Also, he didn't have much in the way of alternative options, you can either ignore the terrorists and hope they go away, or you can risk taking away freedoms of privacy which the terrorists would otherwise enjoy while plotting the deaths of innocents. I think I would have made similar decisions to Bush in that area (and that one alone :p)
    Greenbull wrote: »
    Can I ask what you base this on?
    Are you American? The constitution, as I've already stated.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Well yes lol. I'm not even really arguing against the process, but the means. As I stated, measures which don't violate the constitution are virtually endless, where as this one is lazy and racist.

    Yea true, you gotta do it with a drivers license. Still, what's gonna happen next? When shit like this happens, no body can tell you because it's unprecedented (that a politician should be able to draft legislation which is entirely non-constitutional). George Bush did the same only in that case it was a potential for millions of lives being lost driving him to do so. Also, he didn't have much in the way of alternative options, you can either ignore the terrorists and hope they go away, or you can risk taking away freedoms of privacy which the terrorists would otherwise enjoy while plotting the deaths of innocents. I think I would have made similar decisions to Bush in that area (and that one alone :p)

    Are you American? The constitution, as I've already stated.

    The thing is the law itself isnt that radical of a leap like the bullshit patriot act laws. All this one does is say federal laws that already exist will be enforced at a state level.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited July 2010
    It wasn't "founded" on the rights of the states or of the federal government. There are limits to what each can do, and immigration law falls outside of what a state is constitutionally allowed to do. If anything, it's Obama's responsibility to strike down this law. It's funny, Obama does something according to the constitution and the right is still pissy about it.


    Show me where in the U.S. Constitution it grants the power of immigration enforcement solely to the U.S. Federal Legislative, Executive, or Judaical branch. You have just clearly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

    Section 10 is the only section that prohibits the powers of the States.
    Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
    Article II deals directly with what rights the States do have.
    Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
    In other words any power not specifically granted to the U.S. Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution is expressly granted to and reserved for the States. The U.S. Constitution is not a document which limits the powers of the states and empowers the federal government. In fact it does the exact opposite as can be clearly seen in Article II and is well known by any scholar of the U.S. Constitution.

    Furthermore no section of the U.S. Constitution deals with immigration in any manner. Therefore it is not unconstitutional for a state to pass a law that makes it illegal to break a federal law. You can take offense, start calling names or anything else your heart may lead you to do. But, the fact remains that your assessment of what the U.S. Constitution allows and who it limits is back asswards my friend.

    There is not a single sentence in the U.S. Constitution that deals with immigration or, more importantly under the terms and condition of Article II, Expressly delegates the jurisdiction of immigration to Congress. Therefor, according to the Constitution and specifically Article II, the States have more right to police immigration than the Federal Government (read Congress) does.

    I know you will argue with me rather than take this as an opportunity to learn something you previously did not know. So with that in mind let em try one last time to help you understand the real truth of this issue and not what you have been falsely led to believe.

    According the the U.S. Constitution (the document which grants congress and any other governmental body its authority) the only powers that Congress and the rest of the Federal Government are granted are those expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are reserved for the States. Since immigration is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and therefor not expressly granted to Congress or any other part of the Federal Government the states have more jurisdiction over immigration than Congress does.

    To fully understand this you need to understand that each state is in essence a stand alone nation that has agreed to a central body (not unlike the United Federation of Planets on Star Trek) to represent the needs that are common to all 50 member countries or states. That is why Article II uses the term sovereignty.

    Sovereignty is defined as a supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. So you see before you start stating things are or are not Constitutional you should really do two things.

    1. Thoroughly read and understand all parts of the U.S. Constitution and any or all U.S. Supreme Court opinions that deal with the section of the Constitution you are dealing with at a given moment.
    2. Acquire a copy of Black's or Bouvier's Law Dictionary so you can understand that words in legislature do not always hold the same meaning as you were taught in English class.
    I know you really believe what you posted but the facts are the facts. As for the U.S. not being founded on States Rights you should really research the vast amount of debate that took place on the topic of States Rights vs Federal Power when the U.S. Constitution was being framed and ratified by the representatives of the original 13 colonies. Or maybe you could brush up bit on the little pissing match that took place between Vice President Aaron Burr and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton July 11th, 1804.


    The bottom line is you could not be more wrong if you tried. So unless you are just trolling in an attempt to get an argument from conservatives I am gald I could help you understand the legalities of this issue a little better.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    The thing is the law itself isnt that radical of a leap like the bullshit patriot act laws. All this one does is say federal laws that already exist will be enforced at a state level.

    It's essential to understand that the precedent set here will probably be used in the future (for evil :eek:).
  • GreenbullGreenbull Regular
    edited July 2010
    Are you American? The constitution, as I've already stated.

    I meant what do you base this on:
    It's a law which could end up deporting innocent Americans to a place where they can not return home and have no means of survival
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited July 2010
    When shit like this happens, no body can tell you because it's unprecedented (that a politician should be able to draft legislation which is entirely non-constitutional).

    Can you kindly show me what part of THIS violates any part of THIS? Oh, and while your at it please be so kind as to point out what part of THIS is violated by THIS? And finally, since no part of THIS of this violates any part of THIS then why would you be against THIS which does nothing more than give Arizona law enforcement official the same authority that THIS gave Federal law enforcement officials in 1940?

    I have been listening to people call AZ SB 1070 racist for almost 4 months now but not one of those people has been able to explain who it is racists but the 1940 Nationality Act (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137. 76th Congress; October 14, 1940.) was and is not racist.

    Also I have listened to the other crowd for going on 4 months how AZ SB 1070 is unconstitutional but not one of those people has been able to show me what part of the constitution it violates or explain why the 1940 Nationality Act (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137. 76th Congress; October 14, 1940.) does not violate the constitution.

    I hear a lot of noise and see a lot of horseshit and gunsmoke but when when the cards are laid out on the table I have yet to see a playable hand by those who make these false claims. In fact I will go so far as to state that the entire crowd who makes the claims of racism and constitutional violations is doing nothing more that serving as a mouthpiece for mainstream media pundits. Pundits who twist the truth and report only aspects that serve their point of view without providing the whole story.

    Now before you go hanging the Republican hat on my head and calling me a heartless racist conservative you should know that I don't watch FOX news or CNN or NBC or CBS or... well you should get the picture by now. In other words I do my own reading, my own thinking, and I draw my own conclusions.

    I highly recommend this approach for two important reasons.

    1. You are far more likely to know what you are talking about when you open your mouth and therefor far less likely to stick your foot into it when you do open it.
    2. You are not being programmed and brainwashed by one political party or the other which makes it far easier to admit when you learn something new.
    But then that is the great part about the internet, you can point something out in black and white without any subjectivity and the other person never has to admit they learned something new.

  • edited July 2010
    Show me where in the U.S. Constitution it grants the power of immigration enforcement solely to the U.S. Federal Legislative, Executive, or Judaical branch. You have just clearly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

    Section 10 is the only section that prohibits the powers of the States.

    Article II deals directly with what rights the States do have.

    In other words any power not specifically granted to the U.S. Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution is expressly granted to and reserved for the States. The U.S. Constitution is not a document which limits the powers of the states and empowers the federal government. In fact it does the exact opposite as can be clearly seen in Article II and is well known by any scholar of the U.S. Constitution.

    Furthermore no section of the U.S. Constitution deals with immigration in any manner. Therefore it is not unconstitutional for a state to pass a law that makes it illegal to break a federal law. You can take offense, start calling names or anything else your heart may lead you to do. But, the fact remains that your assessment of what the U.S. Constitution allows and who it limits is back asswards my friend.

    There is not a single sentence in the U.S. Constitution that deals with immigration or, more importantly under the terms and condition of Article II, Expressly delegates the jurisdiction of immigration to Congress. Therefor, according to the Constitution and specifically Article II, the States have more right to police immigration than the Federal Government (read Congress) does.

    I know you will argue with me rather than take this as an opportunity to learn something you previously did not know. So with that in mind let em try one last time to help you understand the real truth of this issue and not what you have been falsely led to believe.

    According the the U.S. Constitution (the document which grants congress and any other governmental body its authority) the only powers that Congress and the rest of the Federal Government are granted are those expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are reserved for the States. Since immigration is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and therefor not expressly granted to Congress or any other part of the Federal Government the states have more jurisdiction over immigration than Congress does.

    To fully understand this you need to understand that each state is in essence a stand alone nation that has agreed to a central body (not unlike the United Federation of Planets on Star Trek) to represent the needs that are common to all 50 member countries or states. That is why Article II uses the term sovereignty.

    Sovereignty is defined as a supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. So you see before you start stating things are or are not Constitutional you should really do two things.

    1. Thoroughly read and understand all parts of the U.S. Constitution and any or all U.S. Supreme Court opinions that deal with the section of the Constitution you are dealing with at a given moment.
    2. Acquire a copy of Black's or Bouvier's Law Dictionary so you can understand that words in legislature do not always hold the same meaning as you were taught in English class.
    I know you really believe what you posted but the facts are the facts. As for the U.S. not being founded on States Rights you should really research the vast amount of debate that took place on the topic of States Rights vs Federal Power when the U.S. Constitution was being framed and ratified by the representatives of the original 13 colonies. Or maybe you could brush up bit on the little pissing match that took place between Vice President Aaron Burr and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton July 11th, 1804.


    The bottom line is you could not be more wrong if you tried. So unless you are just trolling in an attempt to get an argument from conservatives I am gald I could help you understand the legalities of this issue a little better.
    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    The bit that says "Naturalization" has been and will be (In the upcoming court case) interpreted to mean laws relating to immigration in general, and since the cover-page of the Arizona law features the words "A BILL ...RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS", it will be found unconstitutional, as the entire country is meant to have a single set of laws relating to unlawfully present aliens and immigration in general.

    The fact that Arizona passed a bill "relating to unlawfully present aliens" (Even if all the bill does is allow police to enforce standing federal laws), it would become precedent for other states to pass laws that could reach far beyond simply letting police do the same things as federal officials.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited July 2010
    The bit that says "Naturalization" has been and will be (In the upcoming court case) interpreted to mean laws relating to immigration in general, and since the cover-page of the Arizona law features the words "A BILL ...RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS", it will be found unconstitutional, as the entire country is meant to have a single set of laws relating to unlawfully present aliens and immigration in general.

    The fact that Arizona passed a bill "relating to unlawfully present aliens" (Even if all the bill does is allow police to enforce standing federal laws), it would become precedent for other states to pass laws that could reach far beyond simply letting police do the same things as federal officials.


    Well then, many noted legal scholars are wrong and you are right. But the problem is have that you failed to address a single point that I have made. Just like all the others before you all you do is give your amateur legal opinion and when asked to point to the exact language, legal precedents, and legal definitions of words which support your statements you fail to even make the attempt.

    So just as I surmised in my previous post you have absolutely no understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the legal definitions of the words therein, or any concept of what a sovereign state actually is.

    I gave you another opportunity to learn something over here because I thought that maybe, just maybe, that other place was an influence on which caused you to stick to your hastily made and poorly planned posts without regard to the facts of a given issue. But I see now that you are simply just another asshole...

    P.S. Although the answer to the following question id quite evident I must sill ask. How much of the three documents I linked above have you even read?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    The bit that says "Naturalization" has been and will be (In the upcoming court case) interpreted to mean laws relating to immigration in general, and since the cover-page of the Arizona law features the words "A BILL ...RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS", it will be found unconstitutional, as the entire country is meant to have a single set of laws relating to unlawfully present aliens and immigration in general.

    The fact that Arizona passed a bill "relating to unlawfully present aliens" (Even if all the bill does is allow police to enforce standing federal laws), it would become precedent for other states to pass laws that could reach far beyond simply letting police do the same things as federal officials.

    We already have those laws all this does is make it enforced on a state level. How do you not understand this?
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    Can you kindly show me what part of THIS violates any part of THIS? Oh, and while your at it please be so kind as to point out what part of THIS is violated by THIS? And finally, since no part of THIS of this violates any part of THIS then why would you be against THIS which does nothing more than give Arizona law enforcement official the same authority that THIS gave Federal law enforcement officials in 1940?

    I have been listening to people call AZ SB 1070 racist for almost 4 months now but not one of those people has been able to explain who it is racists but the 1940 Nationality Act (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137. 76th Congress; October 14, 1940.) was and is not racist.

    Also I have listened to the other crowd for going on 4 months how AZ SB 1070 is unconstitutional but not one of those people has been able to show me what part of the constitution it violates or explain why the 1940 Nationality Act (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137. 76th Congress; October 14, 1940.) does not violate the constitution.

    I hear a lot of noise and see a lot of horseshit and gunsmoke but when when the cards are laid out on the table I have yet to see a playable hand by those who make these false claims. In fact I will go so far as to state that the entire crowd who makes the claims of racism and constitutional violations is doing nothing more that serving as a mouthpiece for mainstream media pundits. Pundits who twist the truth and report only aspects that serve their point of view without providing the whole story.

    Now before you go hanging the Republican hat on my head and calling me a heartless racist conservative you should know that I don't watch FOX news or CNN or NBC or CBS or... well you should get the picture by now. In other words I do my own reading, my own thinking, and I draw my own conclusions.

    I highly recommend this approach for two important reasons.

    1. You are far more likely to know what you are talking about when you open your mouth and therefor far less likely to stick your foot into it when you do open it.
    2. You are not being programmed and brainwashed by one political party or the other which makes it far easier to admit when you learn something new.
    But then that is the great part about the internet, you can point something out in black and white without any subjectivity and the other person never has to admit they learned something new.


    No you're too boring :facepalm:


    Seriously tho:
    Amendment 5
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
    unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
    in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
    of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
    to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
    criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
    liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
    taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Holding people on the basis of race and forcing em to describe their passions or ways of life is breaking the fifth amendment, as no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, etc.

    Besides that the constitution grants that all men are created equal and therefore any law which is made to subvert fears and racial tensions into oppressive legislation has to be inherently opposed to that initial concept.
  • ilovechronicilovechronic Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    Obama should be allowed to remove the fascist/ racist governor of Arizona, considering the circumstances. I don't see anyone calling him on this really.

    Then again I do know how ingrained American politics are in the concept of the state's right to self-governance and in all honesty I would have hated to see George Bush extending his power in this way. I can only imagine how Republicans feel about this..

    Ignorant fuck. She is not fascist or racist, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
  • ilovechronicilovechronic Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    The bit that says "Naturalization" has been and will be (In the upcoming court case) interpreted to mean laws relating to immigration in general, and since the cover-page of the Arizona law features the words "A BILL ...RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS", it will be found unconstitutional, as the entire country is meant to have a single set of laws relating to unlawfully present aliens and immigration in general.

    The fact that Arizona passed a bill "relating to unlawfully present aliens" (Even if all the bill does is allow police to enforce standing federal laws), it would become precedent for other states to pass laws that could reach far beyond simply letting police do the same things as federal officials.

    How is that relevant to what Arizona is doing now?Why would that matter? Thats not AZ that is other states.

    People also fail to realize that the law gives the people means to SUE law enforcement and the state if they wrongfully treated or detained/imprisoned by the police.

    I think AZ should sue the federal government for their "suspicionless checkpoint" scam that has been going on for a long time in yuma county AZ. Those are unconstitutional. The federal gov is so hypocritical they STRICTLY enforce marijuana laws in one state and then they do not enforce the laws hardly at all in other states it is just rediculous. I am truly ashamed of what this country has become where a government will turn their backs on their own citizens for the possible chance of getting a million votes.

    Our country is on the brink of failure. They make claims we are out of the recession but our deficit,GDP,poverty level, unemployment rates do not jive with the claims. And what do they do, ignore their citizens and what they want and throw money at every single problem.
    The states make up the union, the union does not make the states.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited July 2010
    No you're too boring :facepalm:


    Seriously tho:

    Holding people on the basis of race and forcing em to describe their passions or ways of life is breaking the fifth amendment, as no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, etc.

    Besides that the constitution grants that all men are created equal and therefore any law which is made to subvert fears and racial tensions into oppressive legislation has to be inherently opposed to that initial concept.

    Three problems with your response.

    1. You are trolling just like you did at that other board. Which is made obvious by your demonstrated lack of understanding of law.
    2. AZ SB 1070 does not hold anyone for a capital crime (do you even know what the fuck a capital crime is?) nor does it force anyone to describe anything. (It is so obvious that you have never read AZ SB 1070 and until you do anything you post on this topic is utter bullshit.)
    3. The U.S. Constitution, the rights it affords, and the protections it provides only apply to U.S. citizens and sovereigns. It does not protect the sovereign peoples of Mexico or any other nation for that matter. No more than any other nations laws apply to us.
    So before you fire up your keyboard and show everyone exactly how ignorant you are on this topic I suggest you spend a few years educating yourself on the law and the U.S. Constitution. Or at the very least read the fucking bill FFS.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited July 2010
    One thing I have noticed is that none of the idiots who are talking shit out of their mouths about this topic has directly addressed a single point I have made. I guess that is because they have not read the U.S. Constitution, 1940 Naturalization Act, or AZ SB 1070. Instead they would rather sit here and troll with bullshit they know has zero foundation in reality.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    One thing I have noticed is that none of the idiots who are talking shit out of their mouths about this topic has directly addressed a single point I have made. I guess that is because they have not read the U.S. Constitution, 1940 Naturalization Act, or AZ SB 1070. Instead they would rather sit here and troll with bullshit they know has zero foundation in reality.

    nor will they because if you prove there only argument wrong the racism thing then there whole point of view on the matter sinks. Theyll cry racism and unconstitutional no matter what.
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    Ignorant fuck. She is not fascist or racist, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

    Yea right bud, this law wouldn't pass in Canada as we are civilized people. Get that concept thru your thick ass dome before you talk to me again; civilized.

    As for the rest of ya, TheDarkRodent obviously you're the one who's trolling. I already made mention of the fact that illegals have no rights in your country (I assume/hope you're American since you know so much about the constitution). However, I'm talking about innocent citizens whose constitutional rights are now being taken away. Not illegals :rolleyes:

    Your response was a cop-out. Try again.

    And dirtysanchez wipe off your lip and think about this for a minute. I've already shown how it's both racist and unconstitutional. The logic used to prove this was not refuted, and yet you guys think I'm just talkin' here? It is racist, is unconstitutional for the, as of now, not disproved reasons I gave, and obviously I'm talking about citizens and not illegals; so if that was a big part of your arguments you might wanna rethink that shit before you reply.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    Yea right bud, this law wouldn't pass in Canada as we are civilized people. Get that concept thru your thick ass dome before you talk to me again; civilized.

    As for the rest of ya, TheDarkRodent obviously you're the one who's trolling. I already made mention of the fact that illegals have no rights in your country (I assume/hope you're American since you know so much about the constitution). However, I'm talking about innocent citizens whose constitutional rights are now being taken away. Not illegals :rolleyes:

    Your response was a cop-out. Try again.

    And dirtysanchez wipe off your lip and think about this for a minute. I've already shown how it's both racist and unconstitutional. The logic used to prove this was not refuted, and yet you guys think I'm just talkin' here? It is racist, is unconstitutional for the, as of now, not disproved reasons I gave, and obviously I'm talking about citizens and not illegals; so if that was a big part of your arguments you might wanna rethink that shit before you reply.

    You have not shown how its racist you've never answered if you've read the law or not. You say its unconstitutional but you say your canadian. As a canadian how did you become such an expert in americas constitution. Again answer this very simple question have you read the bill? And if so what part is so racist
  • Big baby jesusBig baby jesus Regular
    edited July 2010
    It targets hispanics. Hispanics are made equal to other citizens by God, according to your constitution. How can they be explicitly targeted if they are equal, all races should be targeted if there is true equality. If something goes against the letters of the Constitution; well I think I've made the point.

    Besides that, true American citizens don't have to answer whether they're illegal because the 5th amendment grants them the right to have a lawyer present during any questioning in respects to a crime. The Illegals of course can just be pulled off the street and sent back? But how do you find em; according to this legislation the correct method is to break the constitution. I disagree with this method.
  • ashenbloodashenblood Acolyte
    edited July 2010
    How is that relevant to what Arizona is doing now?Why would that matter? Thats not AZ that is other states.

    People also fail to realize that the law gives the people means to SUE law enforcement and the state if they wrongfully treated or detained/imprisoned by the police.

    I think AZ should sue the federal government for their "suspicionless checkpoint" scam that has been going on for a long time in yuma county AZ. Those are unconstitutional. The federal gov is so hypocritical they STRICTLY enforce marijuana laws in one state and then they do not enforce the laws hardly at all in other states it is just rediculous. I am truly ashamed of what this country has become where a government will turn their backs on their own citizens for the possible chance of getting a million votes.

    Our country is on the brink of failure. They make claims we are out of the recession but our deficit,GDP,poverty level, unemployment rates do not jive with the claims. And what do they do, ignore their citizens and what they want and throw money at every single problem.
    The states make up the union, the union does not make the states.

    It's matters because allowing states to operate independent of the federal government and form their own policies on a national issue such as immigration is a recipe for disaster.

    As for the rest of your post, fuck you, America is still THE world superpower and people like you are the source of many of the problems you lament.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited July 2010
    ashenblood wrote: »
    It's matters because allowing states to operate independent of the federal government and form their own policies on a national issue such as immigration is a recipe for disaster.

    As for the rest of your post, fuck you, America is still THE world superpower and people like you are the source of many of the problems you lament.

    Are you retarded? This country was supposed to be about the rights of the people and the states.
Sign In or Register to comment.