Obama Commits acts of High Treason
ILTST9
Regular
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
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/justice-department-arizon_n_636431.html
Look at the US Constitution and tell me this isn't High TreasonThe 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.
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.
Comments
Bye bye amendments.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lul
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.
Right, but what you don't understand is that "Rule of Naturalization" has been interpreted to mean all immigration law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If it were I'd be busting domes tho lol your legal and civil liberties are being extremely threatened here if you're American
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.
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.
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.
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.
IIRC a license is a form of residency.
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.
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.
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.
It's essential to understand that the precedent set here will probably be used in the future (for evil :eek:).
I meant what do you base this on:
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.
- 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.
- 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.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?
We already have those laws all this does is make it enforced on a state level. How do you not understand this?
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.
Ignorant fuck. She is not fascist or racist, you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
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.
Three problems with your response.
- You are trolling just like you did at that other board. Which is made obvious by your demonstrated lack of understanding of law.
- 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.)
- 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.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.
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
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'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.