If you are suggesting that all of the states secede from this country, then I understand your views. However, since you seem so devoted to the historical goals and merits of this country I'll present a historical analogy. Abraham Lincoln and about two thirds of the country believed that the protection of federal powers was worth hundreds of thousands of lives when they committed to the Civil War. Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery, but of that of states rights. Anyway, I don't see how deferring immigration policy decisions to the states protects the people. You seem to believe that states rights are equivalent to individual rights, but the fact is, the states do not necessarily serve the people better than the federal government.
If you are suggesting that all of the states secede from this country, then I understand your views. However, since you seem so devoted to the historical goals and merits of this country I'll present a historical analogy. Abraham Lincoln and about two thirds of the country believed that the protection of federal powers was worth hundreds of thousands of lives when they committed to the Civil War. Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was not fought over the issue of slavery, but of that of states rights. Anyway, I don't see how deferring immigration policy decisions to the states protects the people. You seem to believe that states rights are equivalent to individual rights, but the fact is, the states do not necessarily serve the people better than the federal government.
Trust me I know why the civil war was fought Ive spent so many hours explaining to people it wasnt about slavery. I think Lincoln set a dangerous precedent by declaring war on the states. Its one we've continued to follow and the federal governments gotten more and more powerful and I still say our governments been unconstitutional ever since the civil war and especially unconstitutional since FDR's presidency. Although I do see lincolns point of a united we stand divided we fall type thing. And maybe our current court system will see this as unconstitutional but I still say its not.
Trust me I know why the civil war was fought Ive spent so many hours explaining to people it wasnt about slavery. I think Lincoln set a dangerous precedent by declaring war on the states. Its one we've continued to follow and the federal governments gotten more and more powerful and I still say our governments been unconstitutional ever since the civil war and especially unconstitutional since FDR's presidency. Although I do see lincolns point of a united we stand divided we fall type thing. And maybe our current court system will see this as unconstitutional but I still say its not.
I misunderstood your views at first, and I agree that the federal government has been on a slow but steady path towards acquiring more power. I would be the first to question some powers that the federal government has come to assume, but immigration is similar to the distribution of currency in that there is no logical, efficient way to organize it, barring national control.
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.
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.
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 PresidentAaron Burr and Secretary of the TreasuryAlexander 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.
I admire your policy of "doing my own reading, my own thinking, and drawing my own conclusions". However, this approach is somewhat ineffective when you are incapable of learning and making decisions independently. Specifically, you claim:
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.
:facepalm:
This statement is drawn from Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.
As I hope you know, the Articles of Confederation were the original governing documents of this country, which failed epicly. In fact, many consider the reason for their failure to be their emphasis on state's rights. The Constitution created a more powerful federal government, and I think many would agree that is has been much more successful.
One provision included in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) does in fact address immigration, and it is known as the necessary and proper clause. it states:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I think this addresses the issue of immigration quite adequately.
EDIT:
It's incredible. He won't even let the Constitution stand in the way of his defense of the Constitution, lol.
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.
It targets illegal immigrants. Yes the majority of the problem is with hispanic people.
You just keep displaying your ignorance.
Just FYI the federal government requires you state your citizenship at all their check points throughout arizona. They will ask you questions about the US to verify your citizenship. They have done this for a long time. They make you stop at their "suspicionless" check points and run drug dogs along your car.
You say it "breaks the constitution" but you don't say how it does or cite anything.
The simple solution is that the police confirm and verify EVERYONES citizenship when they are stopped by the police just like the federal government does to its citizens at the border and the border check points.
Law enforcement officers are allowed to obtain your most basic information from you in a field investigation to identify who you are and if you are clean. That why whenever law enforcement makes contact with individuals they have to identify them and run everyone for warrants. Officers have the right to identify citizens. Example, I got into a fendr bender and my friend was with me who had a warrant. He is hispanic looking(native,mex and half white) and he looked nervous. The officer ID'd him and saw his warrant. The officer said "thats why
you looked nervous." Profiled? or reasonable suspicion?
there is a circle k across the street from the police station downtown in chandler AZ. All the illegals hang out right there trying to get work. The police can't do shit about it right now because of the current legislation. Its like that in every city in AZ. They liked homedepots also.
Like darkrodent pointed out you don't know shit about the US system and probably don't know shit about your own system either.
Questioning an individual =!= interrogation. You have the right to attorney when you are being interrogated for a crime. When an investigator is questioning a person about something and the individual being questioned becomes a suspect to a crime they then read what is called the miranda rights which just so happens to be a famous arizona case about an immigrant Ernesto miranda.
Do you even know what reasonable suspicion is?
With reasonable suspicion a law enforcement officer can do an exterior search of your person for weapons. Reasonable suspicion is if an officer has reason to believe a crime has occured, is about to occur, or is presently occuring. That is also another very famous case terry vs ohio and that was deemed constitutional. It is called the terry pat/stop. Reasonable suspicion leads to probable cause to make an arrest, that is when a lawyer can get involved you stupid troll.
Once again this law gives people a means to sue if they are improperly treated.
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.
Your response is the cop out son. I provided you with all the documentation regarding the bill and the constitution and invited you to show me, using the actual documents being discussed, where any part of AZ SB 1070 violates any part of the U.S. Constitution. Instead of crafting an intelligent response based on the facts of the issue (read: language of AZ SB 1070, language of the U.S. Constitution, language of 1940 Nationality Act [H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137. 76th Congress; October 14, 1940]) you have once more chose to make an unfounded claim of some unspecified violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Here is the problem with your argument and why it is either failing or failtrolling (you tell us which). You have already told us you are not from the U.S. you are from, what was that you said, oh yeah "Canada as we are civilized people". You also asked if I was a U.S. sovereign. Well yes, I am from the U.S., and I know my constitution very well. In my generation it was stressed in the public schools. I also swore an oath to amongst other things "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". So, at the tender age of 18, when I swore that oath I figured that since I had already been taught a great deal about my constitution, that I have always found it to be a fascinating document, and that I had just swore to defend it with my life that I had better learn as much about it as I could. Where as you on the other hand are from another country that obviously never taught anything relevant about the U.S. Constitution.
It is crystal clear to anyone paying attention ITT that you have not cited one single sentence of language from any of the documents concerned to support your claims. It also crystal clear why you have not done so, because you have neither read nor can you therefor understand the facts of this issue.
Since the documents have been provided both in this conversation and in numerous other conversation on that other board, conversations which both you and I have both participated in. And since you have refused to read and understand the facts of the issue on multiple occasions over the last few months. And since you have not once substantiated your claims. This panel can only be left with choice of finding you to be a repetitive troll.
If you should choose to challenge the findings of this panel your only recourse is to provide language from AZ SB 1070 that is a violation of any part of the language of the U.S. Constitution. Please be sure to cite section and paragraph of each document and to provide quotes of the specified areas of each document with a short essay outline how the quoted section of AZ SB 1070 violates the quoted section of the U.S. Constitution.
Failure to successfully meet the requirements of challenging this panels findings will result in an admission of trolling on your part (Big baby jesus) which will carry the consequences of being snickered at behind your back whenever you walk into or out of the room.
Why do you insist on maintaining the failed illusion that you are an authoritative source when it comes to the Constitution, or any other document for that matter? Obviously you know much less than you pretend to, if you don't even know the difference between the Articles of Confederation and Constitution, let alone the significance of the necessary and proper clause. Citing documents does not increase your credibility in the slightest, you need to make valid points and draw conclusions from the information. You are much more interested in justifying your own expertise than actually discussing the topic at hand. Please refer to my earlier post (did you miss it?) for a thorough explanation of your errors.
Why do you insist on maintaining the failed illusion that you are an authoritative source when it comes to the Constitution, or any other document for that matter? Obviously you know much less than you pretend to, if you don't even know the difference between the Articles of Confederation and Constitution, let alone the significance of the necessary and proper clause. Citing documents does not increase your credibility in the slightest, you need to make valid points and draw conclusions from the information. You are much more interested in justifying your own expertise than actually discussing the topic at hand. Please refer to my earlier post (did you miss it?) for a thorough explanation of your errors.
If you had been part of 3 to 4 other conversation on this same issue on another board where both BBJ and myself went through this same shit your opinion on my approach might have some bearing. But it doesn't so either make a point to the topic or move along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkRodent 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.
:facepalm:
This statement is drawn from Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.
Why do you insist on maintaining the failed illusion that you are an authoritative source when it comes to the Constitution, or any other document for that matter? Obviously you know much less than you pretend to, if you don't even know the difference between the Articles of Confederation and Constitution, let alone the significance of the necessary and proper clause. Citing documents does not increase your credibility in the slightest, you need to make valid points and draw conclusions from the information. You are much more interested in justifying your own expertise than actually discussing the topic at hand. Please refer to my earlier post (did you miss it?) for a thorough explanation of your errors.
LOl :facepalm: that is like the first thing they say in their oath "i swear to uphold the constitution."(police and military) dumbshit.
An accent is not reasonably suspicious nor does it justify probable cause to suspect that someone is guilty of a crime.
I didn't say it was.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and its protections extended to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicle falling short of arrest. A reasonable suspicion determination is made by the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. Past cases have recognized reasonable suspicion was a somewhat abstract notion – a deliberate intent to avoid a neat set of legal rules. Rather than viewing incidents in isolation, the proper test is to look at factors as a whole to determine if there is reasonable suspicion.
A police officer can conduct an investigative stop and briefly detain and question a person for investigative purposes when the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts. Subsequent to a valid Terry stop, a police officer can search the individual for weapons where the officer has reason to believe the person is armed and dangerous. In assessing whether the suspect is armed, the officer doesn’t have to be absolutely certain; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.
Loitering at the local circle K every day is grounds to question these people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
A valid point, but I would counter it with the necessary and proper clause. In the end, the Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways (purposefully, i would argue), all of which could theoretically be valid. However, the federal government has been given the lion's share of immigration regulation for more than 100 years in Supreme Court cases. The precedents clearly suggest that the AZ law will be struck down, as similar bills have since the 1800s. I guess that we will have to wait and see, but I am quite sure that the whole law will not survive, although it is conceivable that some parts will remain intact.
Well, when the only sections in the constitution that even mention this sort of thing seem to say that the feds are supposed to handle it, there isn't much room for opinion.
Also, all this talk about the constitution meaning for individual states to have more power than the federal government makes me wonder if you guys realize why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.
Well, when the only sections in the constitution that even mention this sort of thing seem to say that the feds are supposed to handle it, there isn't much room for opinion.
Also, all this talk about the constitution meaning for individual states to have more power than the federal government makes me wonder if you guys realize why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.
I know and understand why however I believe getting rid of them was a mistake. We would be better off with them.
Your response is the cop out son. I provided you with all the documentation regarding the bill and the constitution and invited you to show me, using the actual documents being discussed, where any part of AZ SB 1070 violates any part of the U.S. Constitution. Instead of crafting an intelligent response based on the facts of the issue (read: language of AZ SB 1070, language of the U.S. Constitution, language of 1940 Nationality Act [H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137. 76th Congress; October 14, 1940]) you have once more chose to make an unfounded claim of some unspecified violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Here is the problem with your argument and why it is either failing or failtrolling (you tell us which). You have already told us you are not from the U.S. you are from, what was that you said, oh yeah "Canada as we are civilized people". You also asked if I was a U.S. sovereign. Well yes, I am from the U.S., and I know my constitution very well. In my generation it was stressed in the public schools. I also swore an oath to amongst other things "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". So, at the tender age of 18, when I swore that oath I figured that since I had already been taught a great deal about my constitution, that I have always found it to be a fascinating document, and that I had just swore to defend it with my life that I had better learn as much about it as I could. Where as you on the other hand are from another country that obviously never taught anything relevant about the U.S. Constitution.
It is crystal clear to anyone paying attention ITT that you have not cited one single sentence of language from any of the documents concerned to support your claims. It also crystal clear why you have not done so, because you have neither read nor can you therefor understand the facts of this issue.
Since the documents have been provided both in this conversation and in numerous other conversation on that other board, conversations which both you and I have both participated in. And since you have refused to read and understand the facts of the issue on multiple occasions over the last few months. And since you have not once substantiated your claims. This panel can only be left with choice of finding you to be a repetitive troll.
If you should choose to challenge the findings of this panel your only recourse is to provide language from AZ SB 1070 that is a violation of any part of the language of the U.S. Constitution. Please be sure to cite section and paragraph of each document and to provide quotes of the specified areas of each document with a short essay outline how the quoted section of AZ SB 1070 violates the quoted section of the U.S. Constitution.
Failure to successfully meet the requirements of challenging this panels findings will result in an admission of trolling on your part (Big baby jesus) which will carry the consequences of being snickered at behind your back whenever you walk into or out of the room.
The longest paragraph of that was about me being Canadian and you liking the Constitution :facepalm: besides that you're supposed ignorance of where my claims substantiate themselves are the only thing laughable. You're talking about taking away human rights in violation of the consitution and defending that saying how the constitution in all 9141 of it's actual words does not explicitly grant the right to all Americans that they should not be searched and questioned without their consent based on suspicions cast upon them based purely in their racial background. Oh yea America has such a friendly history of racial harmony, I'm sure that type of protection in coming up in one of the next few amendments.
:facepalm: seriously just think about it like a person instead of a cnn-drone/ fox news drone I don't care, do what you will. Obviously the potential for citizens to be in danger based on their racial background has risen thanks to this legislation. Thanks for your retort tho it seemed to espouse very high confidence that I got you here, if your best comeback is that I'm somehow trolling you with decency. Following some kind of historical trend? How is it that you seem to take the most pizzanazi-esque stances in threads that I post in. Both you and him show little understanding or compassion in many issues, focusing instead on little details which you feel can be picked out of the truth to try and make an argument based on equality look weak
The longest paragraph of that was about me being Canadian and you liking the Constitution :facepalm: besides that you're supposed ignorance of where my claims substantiate themselves are the only thing laughable. You're talking about taking away human rights in violation of the consitution and defending that saying how the constitution in all 9141 of it's actual words does not explicitly grant the right to all Americans that they should not be searched and questioned without their consent based on suspicions cast upon them based purely in their racial background. Oh yea America has such a friendly history of racial harmony, I'm sure that type of protection in coming up in one of the next few amendments.
:facepalm: seriously just think about it like a person instead of a cnn-drone/ fox news drone I don't care, do what you will. Obviously the potential for citizens to be in danger based on their racial background has risen thanks to this legislation. Thanks for your retort tho it seemed to espouse very high confidence that I got you here, if your best comeback is that I'm somehow trolling you with decency. Following some kind of historical trend? How is it that you seem to take the most pizzanazi-esque stances in threads that I post in. Both you and him show little understanding or compassion in many issues, focusing instead on little details which you feel can be picked out of the truth to try and make an argument based on equality look weak
So you wrote all of that when you simply could have said;
"Sorry, but I have not read AZ SB 1070 or the U.S. Constitution and can't point to any part of this bill that violates anyone's rights under the U.S. Constitution. So i am now going to change my approach by hinting at some basic human rights issue with this bill."
In other words you are a troll. Why? Because you have made claims of AZ SB 1070 being in violation of the U.S. Constitution but when called to the mat to support those claims with actual language of the two documents allegedly in conflict you either refuse to attempt the exercise or (and we all know this one is the real truth) you never knew what you were talking about in the first place and were just spewing shit to wind people up.
If you wish to refute this then please join the conversation by either showing us why AZ SB 1070 is unconstitutional, as you originally claimed. Either that or you are left with three choices.
Admit you were wrong.
Admit you were trolling.
Continue to troll.
All you have really done in your last post is to attack me as a person and ignore my objective argument and the points it has made.
I know and understand why however I believe getting rid of them was a mistake. We would be better off with them.
Well, we did get rid of them, and the Constitution doesn't give as many rights or as much power to the individual states. Which brings me to my next issue. If you know why we have the constitution instead of the AoC, and you know the difference between them, why do you continually insist that individual states (Such as Arizona) have these sorts of powers under the constitution?
While you personally may believe that states should have these powers, it doesn't mean that they actually do.
EDIT: Also, a lawsuit from the federal government against a state does not constitute high-treason.. :facepalm:
All you have really done in your last post is to attack me as a person and ignore my objective argument and the points it has made.
:facepalm: You're regurgitating what I'm saying to you, and noting not that slavery was still legal at the time of your constitutions signing, but that the constitution doesn't protect people of ethnic backgrounds other than Caucasian. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was not drafted into the constitution in anyway.
Besides that, I already showed you where true citizens are having their rights taken away, and that's not going to change. You're implying that citizens have to answer to capital crimes, but if the feds come in then they're allowed to be hanged by their heels without lawyer until an answer is tortured out of them. Does that fucking sound right to you? Obviously it's against the 5th amendment in this way.
Also you're implying that equality among men, granted in the constitution, is not relevant here. Or it doesn't hold any documentation providing equality to citizens. Which it obviously does, and therefore is.
protip: they won't make this law constitutional because holding 'citizenship tribunals' would be far to expensive for those hicks in Arizona. gtfo..
:facepalm: You're regurgitating what I'm saying to you, and noting not that slavery was still legal at the time of your constitutions signing, but that the constitution doesn't protect people of ethnic backgrounds other than Caucasian. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was not drafted into the constitution in anyway.
Besides that, I already showed you where true citizens are having their rights taken away, and that's not going to change. You're implying that citizens have to answer to capital crimes, but if the feds come in then they're allowed to be hanged by their heels without lawyer until an answer is tortured out of them. Does that fucking sound right to you? Obviously it's against the 5th amendment in this way.
Also you're implying that equality among men, granted in the constitution, is not relevant here. Or it doesn't hold any documentation providing equality to citizens. Which it obviously does, and therefore is.
protip: they won't make this law constitutional because holding 'citizenship tribunals' would be far to expensive for those hicks in Arizona. gtfo..
You have shown nothing all you have done is spew opinion. Show me where you demonstrated in the language of AZ SB 1070 "true citizens" are having their right taken away. That bullshit about having to talk to a cop without a lawyer does not fly. You must provide identification if requested by the law period.
DCo you even know what you are saying when you say capital crimes?
You don't know shit about AZ SB 1070, you have not read AZ SB 1070, you don't know shit about the U.S. Constitution, and you are talking pure shit ITT.
Well, we did get rid of them, and the Constitution doesn't give as many rights or as much power to the individual states. Which brings me to my next issue. If you know why we have the constitution instead of the AoC, and you know the difference between them, why do you continually insist that individual states (Such as Arizona) have these sorts of powers under the constitution?
While you personally may believe that states should have these powers, it doesn't mean that they actually do.
EDIT: Also, a lawsuit from the federal government against a state does not constitute high-treason.. :facepalm:
This is where your wrong our constitution DOES allow the states to deal with criminals. This law says nothing about who becomes a criminal therefore it IS legal under our constitution.
Now read this law before you respond. Read this law or your opinion on this is meaningless. This also goes for you big baby jesus.
Then say what part targets innocents and is illegal until you do this Ill be forced to see you both as trolls who opinion is based on ignorance. The law is short so it wont take long to read. It seems to me that people who actually read the law believe it to be constitutional.
:facepalm: it's been implied by me numerous times in this thread and also explicitly stated on every news source i've seen on the subject that the problem isn't with the letter of this law but the way it will be enforced.
Btw is was easy to find. Section B is the one where they give themselves the right to pick someone out of a crowd based on race and then question them.
This is where your wrong our constitution DOES allow the states to deal with criminals. This law says nothing about who becomes a criminal therefore it IS legal under our constitution.
Now read this law before you respond. Read this law or your opinion on this is meaningless. This also goes for you big baby jesus.
Do you see the last line of the blue text in that image? Do you see where it says "RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS"?
That's why you lose. The content of the bill barely matters because they put "RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS" on the front goddamn page. This means that Arizona (A state) is overstepping it's authority by passing a law relating to unlawfully present aliens.
Then say what part targets innocents and is illegal until you do this Ill be forced to see you both as trolls who opinion is based on ignorance. The law is short so it wont take long to read. It seems to me that people who actually read the law believe it to be constitutional.
Unlawful aliens are not granted the same rights and protections and legal citizens. These laws pertaining to them are not any different then the federal laws that already exist therefore its completely legal. This law has nothing to do with the citizenship process so this lawsuit and your argument has no basis. This law does nothing that could in any way harm a legal citizen. The states have every right to defend themselves against this invasion by illegals. Also you are required to show ID if asked to by law enforcement. Your arguments have no basis in the constitution.
Unlawful aliens are not granted the same rights and protections and legal citizens. These laws pertaining to them are not any different then the federal laws that already exist therefore its completely legal. This law has nothing to do with the citizenship process so this lawsuit and your argument has no basis. This law does nothing that could in any way harm a legal citizen. The states have every right to defend themselves against this invasion by illegals. Also you are required to show ID if asked to by law enforcement. Your arguments have no basis in the constitution.
Just a little correction, you are required to identify yourself and give the most basic information like name and DOB and sometimes your soc or DL #. An ID/DL just streamlines it.
Unlawful aliens are not granted the same rights and protections and legal citizens.
The correct point that you've made. They have no rights except to be detained and subsequently deported. That's all an illegal can expect in America, Indonesia, Canada, and anywhere else.
These laws pertaining to them are not any different then the federal laws that already exist therefore its completely legal.
If it's not any different then why make the law :facepalm: this is a transparent falsehood.
This law has nothing to do with the citizenship process so this lawsuit and your argument has no basis. This law does nothing that could in any way harm a legal citizen.
Except make them feel as tho their racial background is singlehandedly casting criminal suspicions on them.
The states have every right to defend themselves against this invasion by illegals.
Yes, in a constitutional way.
Also you are required to show ID if asked to by law enforcement. Your arguments have no basis in the constitution.
How so? You have no evidence that can refute the notion that questioning can be denied by any American citizen until a lawyer is present. Nor the basic human understanding that equality is the most important facet of a just society, and also that it is explicitly granted in the constitution.
TheDarkRodent, DirtySanchez....I may be done with you here. It's just the same thing over and over, with no regard given to the facts.
Unlawful aliens are not granted the same rights and protections and legal citizens.
Irrelevant. This isn't about individual rights, it's about states rights vs. the federal governments rights.
These laws pertaining to them are not any different then the federal laws that already exist therefore its completely legal.
Wrong. Legal for the feds to have on the books, not legal for Arizona (As the coming court case will prove).
This law has nothing to do with the citizenship process so this lawsuit and your argument has no basis.
"Naturalization" has been interpreted to mean all immigration related laws in the context of the constitution, which is the basis of the lawsuit. Please stop making me repeat myself.
This law does nothing that could in any way harm a legal citizen.
Irrelevant.
The states have every right to defend themselves against this invasion by illegals.
No, they actually don't.
Also you are required to show ID if asked to by law enforcement.
How so? You have no evidence that can refute the notion that questioning can be denied by any American citizen until a lawyer is present. Nor the basic human understanding that equality is the most important facet of a just society, and also that it is explicitly granted in the constitution.
ORLYY??? Maybe the fact that im a FUCKING CITIZEN born in America whose dealt with law enforcement many times. You think that might be why I know that fucknuts:facepalm:? You do have a right to refuse questioning but not showing id is considered interfering with an investigation. You ever stop to think that maybe just maybe an American whos been questioned by and dealt with the cops may know his rights better than a fucking Canadian??:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
ORLYY??? Maybe the fact that im a FUCKING CITIZEN born in America whose dealt with law enforcement many times. You think that might be why I know that fucknuts:facepalm:? You do have a right to refuse questioning but not showing id is considered interfering with an investigation. You ever stop to think that maybe just maybe an American whos been questioned by and dealt with the cops may know his rights better than a fucking Canadian??:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
I was thinking the same shit. wtf does this canuck know about the US? supposedly he lives in a much more civilized country that is a utopia and doesn't have these issues. Or maybe he is so worried about the US that he doesn't know shit about his own country
If you refuse to follow an officers commands it is called obstructing justice which is a felony in some states. Once an officer has a reason to stop a person that person cannot leave until the officer tels them they can because he is then conducting a field investigation. Usually the persons friends,family, or sometimes just random people will get interfering with an investigation if they literally interfere with it. Not saying your wrong really because you could probably be charged for both.
Also, about the identification thing, that is only in my state I am pretty sure, it may be different in your states.
Remember justanotherasshole and BBJ we are talking about the sneaky lawyers responsible for the gun bans in the city of Chicago that were just deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.
Your points are noted and we get you guys think its unconstitutional, well we don't, we will see what the courts decide.
ORLYY??? Maybe the fact that im a FUCKING CITIZEN born in America whose dealt with law enforcement many times. You think that might be why I know that fucknuts:facepalm:? You do have a right to refuse questioning but not showing id is considered interfering with an investigation. You ever stop to think that maybe just maybe an American whos been questioned by and dealt with the cops may know his rights better than a fucking Canadian??:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
It's not an investigation if the only evidence they're going on is a suspect's race. That's just harassment. Thanks for posting all those :facepalm:'s because they really apply to your post here.
I was thinking the same shit. wtf does this canuck know about the US? supposedly he lives in a much more civilized country that is a utopia and doesn't have these issues. Or maybe he is so worried about the US that he doesn't know shit about his own country
If you refuse to follow an officers commands it is called obstructing justice which is a felony in some states. Once an officer has a reason to stop a person that person cannot leave until the officer tels them they can because he is then conducting a field investigation. Usually the persons friends,family, or sometimes just random people will get interfering with an investigation if they literally interfere with it. Not saying your wrong really because you could probably be charged for both.
Also, about the identification thing, that is only in my state I am pretty sure, it may be different in your states.
Remember justanotherasshole and BBJ we are talking about the sneaky lawyers responsible for the gun bans in the city of Chicago that were just deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.
Your points are noted and we get you guys think its unconstitutional, well we don't, we will see what the courts decide.
How come this is the first we've heard of this? OH yeah because your argument fails. There's no investigation if your just pulling people off the street. That doesnt fall under the terms of a legal investigation. That falls under the terms of living in Nazi Germany.
It's not an investigation if the only evidence they're going on is a suspect's race. That's just harassment. Thanks for posting all those :facepalm:'s because they really apply to your post here.
Obstruction of an on-going investigation as related to a crime where there are witnesses or at least proof of a crime taking place? Not relevant here.
Lying to a police officer about you identity is considered obstruction.they will get you for obstruction for lying to an officer. You should atleast know about what you are trying to argue brah. If an officer iniates a stop they must have reason yes. A reason could be anything from loitering to traffic violations to straight criminal violations. They then do a FI or field invetigation which just mean finding out your identity and if you have any warrants that need to be taken care of. If you refuse or lie about your identity that is obstruction of justice. It can be for something simple.
Ok I will play oyur game brah.
Maybe because your not a US citizen and you are ignorant to our laws and system?
How come this is the first we've heard of this? OH yeah because your argument fails. There's no investigation if your just pulling people off the street. That doesnt fall under the terms of a legal investigation. That falls under the terms of living in Nazi Germany.
That hasn't happend therefore irrelevant.Your talking about a what if not a what.
. Edit its obstruction. The definition I found was weird but nvm.
A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.
In my state we have
13-2401 Personal information on the world wide web; exception; classification; definitions
13-2402 Obstructing governmental operations; classification
13-2403 Refusing to aid a peace officer; classification
13-2404 Refusing to assist in fire control; classification
13-2405 Compounding; classification
13-2406 Impersonating a public servant; classification
13-2407 Tampering with a public record; classification
13-2408 Securing the proceeds of an offense; classification
13-2409 Obstructing criminal investigations or prosecutions; classification
13-2410 Obstructing officer from collecting public money; classification
13-2411 Impersonating a peace officer; classification; definition
13-2412 Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
and every other state will have similar language. Your country probably has laws like this also.
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
13-707. Misdemeanors; sentencing
A. A sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall be for a definite term to be served other than a place within custody of the state department of corrections. The court shall fix the term of imprisonment within the following maximum limitations:
1. For a class 1 misdemeanor, six months.
2. For a class 2 misdemeanor, four months.(max)
3. For a class 3 misdemeanor, thirty days.
B. A person who is at least eighteen years of age or who has been tried as an adult and who stands convicted of any misdemeanor or petty offense, other than a traffic offense, and who has been convicted of one or more of the same misdemeanors or petty offenses within two years next preceding the date of the present offense shall be sentenced for the next higher class of offense than that for which the person currently is convicted. Time spent incarcerated within the two years next preceding the date of the offense for which a person is currently being sentenced shall not be included in the two years required to be free of convictions.
C. If a person is convicted of a misdemeanor offense and the offense requires enhanced punishment because it is a second or subsequent offense, the court shall determine the existence of the previous conviction. The court shall allow the allegation of a prior conviction to be made in the same manner as the allegation prescribed by section 28-1387, subsection A.
D. A person who has been convicted in any court outside the jurisdiction of this state of an offense that if committed in this state would be punishable as a misdemeanor or petty offense is subject to this section. A person who has been convicted as an adult of an offense punishable as a misdemeanor or petty offense under the provisions of any prior code in this state is subject to this section.
E. The court may direct that a person who is sentenced pursuant to subsection A of this section shall not be released on any basis until the sentence imposed by the court has been served.
Hasn't happened before!? Not only has it happened, it's literally the only factor of the law which actually impacts anything.
And even tho I live here and not in a slightly more southern location, I still know what an investigation is. That's when there's a crime and a suspect and you have them linked to each other somehow in a way that isn't involving race (i know I'm starting to sound like a broken record)
Oh wait....that's not what it is in the States you guys just pull blacks off the rd and lock em up for shit that goes wrong. This law makes sense when I take that into account.
If it's not any different then why make the law :facepalm: this is a transparent falsehood.
The reason why the law exists is because Arizona got fed up the federal government's lackluster enforcement of immigration law. Governor Brewer enforced this line of thought by saying it is "a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix, the crisis caused by illegal immigration in Arizona's porous border."
Except make them feel as tho their racial background is singlehandedly casting criminal suspicions on them.
Well that's on them, not on Arizonian law enforcement. Also to the best of my knowledge illegal aliens are neither an ethnic group, nor a religious group, nor any single category. Simply put, they are people that are in this country without proper documentation or, in other words, without proper authorization. If one wants to look at where illegal immigrants come from they will find people from Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. Therefore, to say that any law in Arizona targets any one particular religious or ethnic group is simply false. It just targets illegal aliens. The fact of the matter is anyone in Arizona illegally, regardless of their race and ethnicity is going to be casted the same criminal suspicions.
Because Arizona is a border state with Mexico most of the illegal aliens caught under the law are going to be Mexican nationals, that's a given. But it is an argument of convenience (due to location) and has no merit in race because the same argument can apply if Mexican Nationals happen to be white, black, yellow or whatever color. The law does not mention any color or ethnicity so not only does the race argument have no merit, it's irrelevant because the law makes no distinctions.
How so? You have no evidence that can refute the notion that questioning can be denied by any American citizen until a lawyer is present. Nor the basic human understanding that equality is the most important facet of a just society, and also that it is explicitly granted in the constitution.
SCOTUS addressed the issue of law enforcement requiring you to show ID in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004). In a 5 to 4 decision the supreme court said that laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement did not violate the fourth amendment. The court also said it didn't necessarily violate the fifth amendment because the defendant (Hiibel) had no reasonable belief that his name will be used to incriminate him.
Equality is not explicitly granted in the constitution. Where did you come up with that? Sure the 15th and 19th amendment prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and previous status as a slave (15th) and sex (19th) but it does not grant them equality as a whole, only in voting. Equality is a pipe dream that only results in one thing, bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Hasn't happened before!? Not only has it happened, it's literally the only factor of the law which actually impacts anything.
And even tho I live here and not in a slightly more southern location, I still know what an investigation is. That's when there's a crime and a suspect and you have them linked to each other somehow in a way that isn't involving race (i know I'm starting to sound like a broken record)
Oh wait....that's not what it is in the States you guys just pull blacks off the rd and lock em up for shit that goes wrong. This law makes sense when I take that into account.
I already said it. It doesn't involve race if you are stopping them for another crime/violation and verifying their identity LIKE THEY WOULD ANYWAY. jesus.
13-2409. Obstructing criminal investigations or prosecutions; classification
A person who knowingly attempts by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation or force or threats of force to obstruct, delay or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury or who knowingly injures another in his person or property on account of the giving by the latter or by any other person of any such information or testimony to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury is guilty of a class 5 felony, except that it is a class 3 felony if the person commits the offense with the intent to promote, further or assist a criminal street gang.
13-702. First time felony offenders; sentencing; definition
A. Unless a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the term of imprisonment for a first felony offense shall be the presumptive sentence determined pursuant to subsection D of this section. Except for those felonies involving a dangerous offense or if a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the court may increase or reduce the presumptive sentence within the ranges set by subsection D of this section. Any reduction or increase shall be based on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsections D and E and shall be within the ranges prescribed in subsection D of this section.
B. If a person is convicted of a felony without having previously been convicted of any felony and if at least two of the aggravating factors listed in section 13-701, subsection D apply, the court may increase the maximum term of imprisonment otherwise authorized for that offense to an aggravated term. If a person is convicted of a felony without having previously been convicted of any felony and if the court finds at least two mitigating factors listed in section 13-701, subsection E apply, the court may decrease the minimum term of imprisonment otherwise authorized for that offense to a mitigated term.
C. The aggravated or mitigated term imposed pursuant to subsection D of this section may be imposed only if at least two of the aggravating circumstances are found beyond a reasonable doubt to be true by the trier of fact or are admitted by the defendant, except that an aggravating circumstance under section 13-701, subsection D, paragraph 11 shall be found to be true by the court, or in mitigation of the crime are found to be true by the court, on any evidence or information introduced or submitted to the court or the trier of fact before sentencing or any evidence presented at trial, and factual findings and reasons in support of these findings are set forth on the record at the time of sentencing.
D. The term of imprisonment for a presumptive, minimum, maximum, mitigated or aggravated sentence shall be within the range prescribed under this subsection. The terms are as follows:
Felony Mitigated Minimum Presumptive Maximum Aggravated
Class 2 3 years 4 years 5 years 10 years 12.5 years
Class 3 2 years 2.5 years 3.5 years 7 years 8.75 years
Class 4 1 year 1.5 years 2.5 years 3 years 3.75 years Class 5 .5 years .75 years 1.5 years 2 years 2.5 years
Class 6 .33 years .5 years 1 year 1.5 years 2 years
E. The court shall inform all of the parties before sentencing occurs of its intent to increase or decrease a sentence to the aggravated or mitigated sentence pursuant this section. If the court fails to inform the parties, a party waives its right to be informed unless the party timely objects at the time of sentencing.
F. For the purposes of this section, "trier of fact" means a jury, unless the defendant and the state waive a jury in which case the trier of fact means the court.
Thanks night shade^.
All you need is reasonable suspicion to detain some one.
Equality is not explicitly granted in the constitution. Where did you come up with that? Sure the 15th and 19th amendment prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and previous status as a slave (15th) and sex (19th) but it does not grant them equality as a whole, only in voting. Equality is a pipe dream that only results in one thing, bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
This is the only important bit of what I just read. You people (who posted, please don't take this part the wrong way or I might die of laughter) don't believe in equality in America. That's alright, we don't really believe in equality here either, we try but it's apparent that we aren't a fully just nation. Even still, if we enacted this same law then most Canadians would be talking about our past with Japanese internment camps. Not whether an investigation based on somebody's race is something that we can just get away with if people don't look too closely at it.
btw the constitution does say pretty early on that all men have the right to, some bullshit I donno. All men, of any color sect or creed. Not just you men..
This is the only important bit of what I just read. You people (who posted, please don't take this part the wrong way or I might die of laughter) don't believe in equality in America. That's alright, we don't really believe in equality here either, we try but it's apparent that we aren't a fully just nation. Even still, if we enacted this same law then most Canadians would be talking about our past with Japanese internment camps. Not whether an investigation based on somebody's race is something that we can just get away with if people don't look too closely at it.
btw the constitution does say pretty early on that all men have the right to, some bullshit I donno. All men, of any color sect or creed. Not just you men..
The pledge of allegiance says all men were created equal.
Heres the problem with your argument, the investigations are not based on race they are based on reasonable suspicion.
..let's just wait n see what the courts say because obviously both our sides have points which can be refuted with further opinions from the other side. If this law is stricken from the books then your opinions will have been wrong. If it's not then mine will have. right ahaha no, but still it's quite apparent that such opinions don't really hold any sway here.
The correct point that you've made. They have no rights except to be detained and subsequently deported. That's all an illegal can expect in America, Indonesia, Canada, and anywhere else.
If it's not any different then why make the law :facepalm: this is a transparent falsehood.
Except make them feel as tho their racial background is singlehandedly casting criminal suspicions on them.
Yes, in a constitutional way.
How so? You have no evidence that can refute the notion that questioning can be denied by any American citizen until a lawyer is present. Nor the basic human understanding that equality is the most important facet of a just society, and also that it is explicitly granted in the constitution.
TheDarkRodent, DirtySanchez....I may be done with you here. It's just the same thing over and over, with no regard given to the facts.
Because your posting new arguments with regards to facts right?:rolleyes: Your a troll im done with this argument becasue obviously no amount of facts will change your mind.
Oh and Arizona is just likenazi germany how stupid of me. Because this
Was definantly allowed in this
I totally forgot about the right to protest and sue the nazis if you were mistreated how stupid of me. Great analogy there asshole.
Obama is well in his right to do this, for der Führer of Arizona is an evil fascist for attempting to prevent illegal immigration, listen to Rolf, for Rolf is to be known.
Obama is well in his right to do this, for der Führer of Arizona is an evil fascist for attempting to prevent illegal immigration, listen to Rolf, for Rolf is to be known.
I question your knowledge and deny your greatness Rolf:mad: You are but a man:o
Dirty Sanchez has the intellect of a kindergärtner. Please stop arguing with him. He's wrong and he has to know it at this point (Everyone else does). Why he continues is way fucking beyond me, but you cannot get through to him. At no point ever will he admit that he is wrong about this issue, no matter what arguments you make or how many times you prove him wrong. So just leave him alone.
Dirty Sanchez has the intellect of a kindergärtner. Please stop arguing with him. He's wrong and he has to know it at this point (Everyone else does). Why he continues is way fucking beyond me, but you cannot get through to him. At no point ever will he admit that he is wrong about this issue, no matter what arguments you make or how many times you prove him wrong. So just leave him alone.
Funny, because I was just thinking the exact same thing about you and BBJ when I was reading this thread.
Comments
Trust me I know why the civil war was fought Ive spent so many hours explaining to people it wasnt about slavery. I think Lincoln set a dangerous precedent by declaring war on the states. Its one we've continued to follow and the federal governments gotten more and more powerful and I still say our governments been unconstitutional ever since the civil war and especially unconstitutional since FDR's presidency. Although I do see lincolns point of a united we stand divided we fall type thing. And maybe our current court system will see this as unconstitutional but I still say its not.
I misunderstood your views at first, and I agree that the federal government has been on a slow but steady path towards acquiring more power. I would be the first to question some powers that the federal government has come to assume, but immigration is similar to the distribution of currency in that there is no logical, efficient way to organize it, barring national control.
It's incredible. He won't even let the Constitution stand in the way of his defense of the Constitution, lol.
I admire your policy of "doing my own reading, my own thinking, and drawing my own conclusions". However, this approach is somewhat ineffective when you are incapable of learning and making decisions independently. Specifically, you claim:
:facepalm:
This statement is drawn from Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.
Articles of Confederation: http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm
Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
As I hope you know, the Articles of Confederation were the original governing documents of this country, which failed epicly. In fact, many consider the reason for their failure to be their emphasis on state's rights. The Constitution created a more powerful federal government, and I think many would agree that is has been much more successful.
One provision included in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) does in fact address immigration, and it is known as the necessary and proper clause. it states: I think this addresses the issue of immigration quite adequately.
EDIT: haha... irony at it's best.
It targets illegal immigrants. Yes the majority of the problem is with hispanic people.
You just keep displaying your ignorance.
Just FYI the federal government requires you state your citizenship at all their check points throughout arizona. They will ask you questions about the US to verify your citizenship. They have done this for a long time. They make you stop at their "suspicionless" check points and run drug dogs along your car.
You say it "breaks the constitution" but you don't say how it does or cite anything.
The simple solution is that the police confirm and verify EVERYONES citizenship when they are stopped by the police just like the federal government does to its citizens at the border and the border check points.
Law enforcement officers are allowed to obtain your most basic information from you in a field investigation to identify who you are and if you are clean. That why whenever law enforcement makes contact with individuals they have to identify them and run everyone for warrants. Officers have the right to identify citizens. Example, I got into a fendr bender and my friend was with me who had a warrant. He is hispanic looking(native,mex and half white) and he looked nervous. The officer ID'd him and saw his warrant. The officer said "thats why
you looked nervous." Profiled? or reasonable suspicion?
there is a circle k across the street from the police station downtown in chandler AZ. All the illegals hang out right there trying to get work. The police can't do shit about it right now because of the current legislation. Its like that in every city in AZ. They liked homedepots also.
Like darkrodent pointed out you don't know shit about the US system and probably don't know shit about your own system either.
Questioning an individual =!= interrogation. You have the right to attorney when you are being interrogated for a crime. When an investigator is questioning a person about something and the individual being questioned becomes a suspect to a crime they then read what is called the miranda rights which just so happens to be a famous arizona case about an immigrant Ernesto miranda.
Do you even know what reasonable suspicion is?
With reasonable suspicion a law enforcement officer can do an exterior search of your person for weapons. Reasonable suspicion is if an officer has reason to believe a crime has occured, is about to occur, or is presently occuring. That is also another very famous case terry vs ohio and that was deemed constitutional. It is called the terry pat/stop. Reasonable suspicion leads to probable cause to make an arrest, that is when a lawyer can get involved you stupid troll.
Once again this law gives people a means to sue if they are improperly treated.
Your response is the cop out son. I provided you with all the documentation regarding the bill and the constitution and invited you to show me, using the actual documents being discussed, where any part of AZ SB 1070 violates any part of the U.S. Constitution. Instead of crafting an intelligent response based on the facts of the issue (read: language of AZ SB 1070, language of the U.S. Constitution, language of 1940 Nationality Act [H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137. 76th Congress; October 14, 1940]) you have once more chose to make an unfounded claim of some unspecified violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Here is the problem with your argument and why it is either failing or failtrolling (you tell us which). You have already told us you are not from the U.S. you are from, what was that you said, oh yeah "Canada as we are civilized people". You also asked if I was a U.S. sovereign. Well yes, I am from the U.S., and I know my constitution very well. In my generation it was stressed in the public schools. I also swore an oath to amongst other things "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". So, at the tender age of 18, when I swore that oath I figured that since I had already been taught a great deal about my constitution, that I have always found it to be a fascinating document, and that I had just swore to defend it with my life that I had better learn as much about it as I could. Where as you on the other hand are from another country that obviously never taught anything relevant about the U.S. Constitution.
It is crystal clear to anyone paying attention ITT that you have not cited one single sentence of language from any of the documents concerned to support your claims. It also crystal clear why you have not done so, because you have neither read nor can you therefor understand the facts of this issue.
Since the documents have been provided both in this conversation and in numerous other conversation on that other board, conversations which both you and I have both participated in. And since you have refused to read and understand the facts of the issue on multiple occasions over the last few months. And since you have not once substantiated your claims. This panel can only be left with choice of finding you to be a repetitive troll.
If you should choose to challenge the findings of this panel your only recourse is to provide language from AZ SB 1070 that is a violation of any part of the language of the U.S. Constitution. Please be sure to cite section and paragraph of each document and to provide quotes of the specified areas of each document with a short essay outline how the quoted section of AZ SB 1070 violates the quoted section of the U.S. Constitution.
Failure to successfully meet the requirements of challenging this panels findings will result in an admission of trolling on your part (Big baby jesus) which will carry the consequences of being snickered at behind your back whenever you walk into or out of the room.
If you had been part of 3 to 4 other conversation on this same issue on another board where both BBJ and myself went through this same shit your opinion on my approach might have some bearing. But it doesn't so either make a point to the topic or move along.
LOl :facepalm: that is like the first thing they say in their oath "i swear to uphold the constitution."(police and military) dumbshit.
I didn't say it was. Loitering at the local circle K every day is grounds to question these people.
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
A valid point, but I would counter it with the necessary and proper clause. In the end, the Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways (purposefully, i would argue), all of which could theoretically be valid. However, the federal government has been given the lion's share of immigration regulation for more than 100 years in Supreme Court cases. The precedents clearly suggest that the AZ law will be struck down, as similar bills have since the 1800s. I guess that we will have to wait and see, but I am quite sure that the whole law will not survive, although it is conceivable that some parts will remain intact.
Im talking about the courts opinion being wrong.
Well, when the only sections in the constitution that even mention this sort of thing seem to say that the feds are supposed to handle it, there isn't much room for opinion.
Also, all this talk about the constitution meaning for individual states to have more power than the federal government makes me wonder if you guys realize why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.
I know and understand why however I believe getting rid of them was a mistake. We would be better off with them.
The longest paragraph of that was about me being Canadian and you liking the Constitution :facepalm: besides that you're supposed ignorance of where my claims substantiate themselves are the only thing laughable. You're talking about taking away human rights in violation of the consitution and defending that saying how the constitution in all 9141 of it's actual words does not explicitly grant the right to all Americans that they should not be searched and questioned without their consent based on suspicions cast upon them based purely in their racial background. Oh yea America has such a friendly history of racial harmony, I'm sure that type of protection in coming up in one of the next few amendments.
:facepalm: seriously just think about it like a person instead of a cnn-drone/ fox news drone I don't care, do what you will. Obviously the potential for citizens to be in danger based on their racial background has risen thanks to this legislation. Thanks for your retort tho it seemed to espouse very high confidence that I got you here, if your best comeback is that I'm somehow trolling you with decency. Following some kind of historical trend? How is it that you seem to take the most pizzanazi-esque stances in threads that I post in. Both you and him show little understanding or compassion in many issues, focusing instead on little details which you feel can be picked out of the truth to try and make an argument based on equality look weak
So you wrote all of that when you simply could have said;
"Sorry, but I have not read AZ SB 1070 or the U.S. Constitution and can't point to any part of this bill that violates anyone's rights under the U.S. Constitution. So i am now going to change my approach by hinting at some basic human rights issue with this bill."
In other words you are a troll. Why? Because you have made claims of AZ SB 1070 being in violation of the U.S. Constitution but when called to the mat to support those claims with actual language of the two documents allegedly in conflict you either refuse to attempt the exercise or (and we all know this one is the real truth) you never knew what you were talking about in the first place and were just spewing shit to wind people up.
If you wish to refute this then please join the conversation by either showing us why AZ SB 1070 is unconstitutional, as you originally claimed. Either that or you are left with three choices.
- Admit you were wrong.
- Admit you were trolling.
- Continue to troll.
All you have really done in your last post is to attack me as a person and ignore my objective argument and the points it has made.Well, we did get rid of them, and the Constitution doesn't give as many rights or as much power to the individual states. Which brings me to my next issue. If you know why we have the constitution instead of the AoC, and you know the difference between them, why do you continually insist that individual states (Such as Arizona) have these sorts of powers under the constitution?
While you personally may believe that states should have these powers, it doesn't mean that they actually do.
EDIT: Also, a lawsuit from the federal government against a state does not constitute high-treason.. :facepalm:
:facepalm: You're regurgitating what I'm saying to you, and noting not that slavery was still legal at the time of your constitutions signing, but that the constitution doesn't protect people of ethnic backgrounds other than Caucasian. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was not drafted into the constitution in anyway.
Besides that, I already showed you where true citizens are having their rights taken away, and that's not going to change. You're implying that citizens have to answer to capital crimes, but if the feds come in then they're allowed to be hanged by their heels without lawyer until an answer is tortured out of them. Does that fucking sound right to you? Obviously it's against the 5th amendment in this way.
Also you're implying that equality among men, granted in the constitution, is not relevant here. Or it doesn't hold any documentation providing equality to citizens. Which it obviously does, and therefore is.
protip: they won't make this law constitutional because holding 'citizenship tribunals' would be far to expensive for those hicks in Arizona. gtfo..
- You have shown nothing all you have done is spew opinion. Show me where you demonstrated in the language of AZ SB 1070 "true citizens" are having their right taken away. That bullshit about having to talk to a cop without a lawyer does not fly. You must provide identification if requested by the law period.
- DCo you even know what you are saying when you say capital crimes?
You don't know shit about AZ SB 1070, you have not read AZ SB 1070, you don't know shit about the U.S. Constitution, and you are talking pure shit ITT.This is where your wrong our constitution DOES allow the states to deal with criminals. This law says nothing about who becomes a criminal therefore it IS legal under our constitution.
Now read this law before you respond. Read this law or your opinion on this is meaningless. This also goes for you big baby jesus.
www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Then say what part targets innocents and is illegal until you do this Ill be forced to see you both as trolls who opinion is based on ignorance. The law is short so it wont take long to read. It seems to me that people who actually read the law believe it to be constitutional.
www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Btw is was easy to find. Section B is the one where they give themselves the right to pick someone out of a crowd based on race and then question them.
Oh, please. :facepalm:
Do you see the last line of the blue text in that image? Do you see where it says "RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS"?
That's why you lose. The content of the bill barely matters because they put "RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS" on the front goddamn page. This means that Arizona (A state) is overstepping it's authority by passing a law relating to unlawfully present aliens.
I didn't say anything about innocent people or any of that, you dense fuck.
Just a little correction, you are required to identify yourself and give the most basic information like name and DOB and sometimes your soc or DL #. An ID/DL just streamlines it.
TheDarkRodent, DirtySanchez....I may be done with you here. It's just the same thing over and over, with no regard given to the facts.
Irrelevant. This isn't about individual rights, it's about states rights vs. the federal governments rights.
Wrong. Legal for the feds to have on the books, not legal for Arizona (As the coming court case will prove).
"Naturalization" has been interpreted to mean all immigration related laws in the context of the constitution, which is the basis of the lawsuit. Please stop making me repeat myself.
Irrelevant.
No, they actually don't.
Irrelevant.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
I'm not playing with you anymore. You're a colossal waste of time.
ORLYY??? Maybe the fact that im a FUCKING CITIZEN born in America whose dealt with law enforcement many times. You think that might be why I know that fucknuts:facepalm:? You do have a right to refuse questioning but not showing id is considered interfering with an investigation. You ever stop to think that maybe just maybe an American whos been questioned by and dealt with the cops may know his rights better than a fucking Canadian??:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
I was thinking the same shit. wtf does this canuck know about the US? supposedly he lives in a much more civilized country that is a utopia and doesn't have these issues. Or maybe he is so worried about the US that he doesn't know shit about his own country
If you refuse to follow an officers commands it is called obstructing justice which is a felony in some states. Once an officer has a reason to stop a person that person cannot leave until the officer tels them they can because he is then conducting a field investigation. Usually the persons friends,family, or sometimes just random people will get interfering with an investigation if they literally interfere with it. Not saying your wrong really because you could probably be charged for both.
Also, about the identification thing, that is only in my state I am pretty sure, it may be different in your states.
Remember justanotherasshole and BBJ we are talking about the sneaky lawyers responsible for the gun bans in the city of Chicago that were just deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.
Your points are noted and we get you guys think its unconstitutional, well we don't, we will see what the courts decide.
I am pretty sure there is another one and I can't fucking seem to recall it right now.
Ok I will play oyur game brah.
Maybe because your not a US citizen and you are ignorant to our laws and system?
That hasn't happend therefore irrelevant.Your talking about a what if not a what.
. Edit its obstruction. The definition I found was weird but nvm.
In my state we have and every other state will have similar language. Your country probably has laws like this also.
Az revised statutes^
And even tho I live here and not in a slightly more southern location, I still know what an investigation is. That's when there's a crime and a suspect and you have them linked to each other somehow in a way that isn't involving race (i know I'm starting to sound like a broken record)
Oh wait....that's not what it is in the States
The reason why the law exists is because Arizona got fed up the federal government's lackluster enforcement of immigration law. Governor Brewer enforced this line of thought by saying it is "a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix, the crisis caused by illegal immigration in Arizona's porous border."
Well that's on them, not on Arizonian law enforcement. Also to the best of my knowledge illegal aliens are neither an ethnic group, nor a religious group, nor any single category. Simply put, they are people that are in this country without proper documentation or, in other words, without proper authorization. If one wants to look at where illegal immigrants come from they will find people from Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. Therefore, to say that any law in Arizona targets any one particular religious or ethnic group is simply false. It just targets illegal aliens. The fact of the matter is anyone in Arizona illegally, regardless of their race and ethnicity is going to be casted the same criminal suspicions.
Because Arizona is a border state with Mexico most of the illegal aliens caught under the law are going to be Mexican nationals, that's a given. But it is an argument of convenience (due to location) and has no merit in race because the same argument can apply if Mexican Nationals happen to be white, black, yellow or whatever color. The law does not mention any color or ethnicity so not only does the race argument have no merit, it's irrelevant because the law makes no distinctions.
SCOTUS addressed the issue of law enforcement requiring you to show ID in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004). In a 5 to 4 decision the supreme court said that laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement did not violate the fourth amendment. The court also said it didn't necessarily violate the fifth amendment because the defendant (Hiibel) had no reasonable belief that his name will be used to incriminate him.
Equality is not explicitly granted in the constitution. Where did you come up with that? Sure the 15th and 19th amendment prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and previous status as a slave (15th) and sex (19th) but it does not grant them equality as a whole, only in voting. Equality is a pipe dream that only results in one thing, bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
I already said it. It doesn't involve race if you are stopping them for another crime/violation and verifying their identity LIKE THEY WOULD ANYWAY. jesus.
Thanks night shade^.
All you need is reasonable suspicion to detain some one.
This is the only important bit of what I just read. You people (who posted, please don't take this part the wrong way or I might die of laughter) don't believe in equality in America. That's alright, we don't really believe in equality here either, we try but it's apparent that we aren't a fully just nation. Even still, if we enacted this same law then most Canadians would be talking about our past with Japanese internment camps. Not whether an investigation based on somebody's race is something that we can just get away with if people don't look too closely at it.
btw the constitution does say pretty early on that all men have the right to, some bullshit I donno. All men, of any color sect or creed. Not just you men..
Heres the problem with your argument, the investigations are not based on race they are based on reasonable suspicion.
in yours they are not.
..let's just wait n see what the courts say because obviously both our sides have points which can be refuted with further opinions from the other side. If this law is stricken from the books then your opinions will have been wrong. If it's not then mine will have. right
Because your posting new arguments with regards to facts right?:rolleyes: Your a troll im done with this argument becasue obviously no amount of facts will change your mind.
Oh and Arizona is just likenazi germany how stupid of me. Because this
Was definantly allowed in this
I totally forgot about the right to protest and sue the nazis if you were mistreated how stupid of me. Great analogy there asshole.
I question your knowledge and deny your greatness Rolf:mad: You are but a man:o
Funny, because I was just thinking the exact same thing about you and BBJ when I was reading this thread.
lol