He does draw well, but doesn’t read well, like the Constitution, that despite “conservative” thought, actually LIMITS the authority of the individual states, like on issues of immigration, whether from other states, or elsewhere.
Lefties don’t need to read bills - its all about feelings … .
0bama, the ‘constitutional’ professor keeps yapping about legal issues without having read them.
On the other hand, if he did read the law, and the amendment thereof, and he still makes such inflammatory statements, it is tantamount to a slanderous defamation of Arizona …
Did read the law as signed, and like the Arizona legislature which is working on amending it, saw Constitutional problems. Those repeating the spiels of Rush, Beck or Coulter(especially) quote myth, based on bigotry and hate, not facts, but call it fact. Coulter on O’Reilly last night was particularly psychotic, even shocking Bill at one point, but she just kept on rambling.
Ann Coulter? Are you serious? Is she the best you’ve got? How did she get famous, anyway? There must be some conservatives who are smart and honest – I can think of a few, anyway. Coulter’s not among them.
One of the problems I have with the AZ law is the burden placed on local law enforcement. They have been given a new mandate but they do not have the resources to properly enforce the law. If they don’t poperly enforce it, they can be sued which reduces funds in order to pay for legal fees. Ignoring the profiling issue, this part is plain stupid.
Peter: Try reading Article IV regarding several aspects, including Section 2, privileges of CITIZENS.
Amendment XiV- Citizenship rights not to be abridged
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Then there’s the Fourth Amendment as well, where we find that nice “but upon probable cause”- where the Arizona law falls short.
It again is NOT the issue of illegals, (yes, a serious problem in MANY states) rather the infringement on the rights of CITIZENS!
“Regurgitating leftist talking points is jut that - a vomit”
The 4th Amendment to the US constitution is a leftist talking point? Ooookay. By the way, I wonder if the Arizona congress would have paid the bill for any lost court suits out of their own pockets.
As for the original premise, last I remember the White House hasn’t exactly been going all-out against Arizona, so all the hand-wringing and name-calling here might be a little excessive.
Endless mentioning of the parts of the Constitution that the left feels that the AZ law violates, without citing any offending specifics in the AZ laws is tantamount to what?
Respect for the Constitution?
I even provided a link to the new AZ law - its only 20 pages … .
the Ariz. law makes illegal entry a lesser crime than the Federal Law, which makes it a “felony”.
The problem is that the Feds have not been serious about
full enforcement of the law, to the extent needed. The FLOOD of illegals is more at the level of WAR against US constitutional LEGAL immigration. If the beefed-up Bush Border Patrol can’t handle it, use the National Guard.
And I believe in “local police enforcement”….
My copy of the Constitution limits the Federal Government to what the Constitution specifically lists for Fed. authority.
All the rest of law enforcement, etc, was given to the STATES for their authority.
The Fed has intruded on State authority for a long time, and public education has revised and taught a different history to 20th century students…thus estranging them from the original version and intent.
And there has long been an organized La Raza (racist) propaganda war to push annexation of SouthWest USA to Mexico! Ignoring historic agreed-upon purchases and treaties….
Peter, why is it you ask a question, and then ignore the answer? Complete waste of time.
You’ve been told on multiple threads that the Arizona law, as originally written, clearly and obviously violated the 4th Amendment, resulting in lawsuits from Arizona mayors, an Arizona policeman, and various other groups.
This, and only this, is the reason that a few days later the Arizona legislature amended the offending section.
There…your question has been answered yet again. And if your behavior on all the other threads is predictive, then I expect we won’t see you again on this one.
(And Howie: Most people on the left don’t consider the Bill of Rights “BS”).
Anthony, you keep regurgitating the same non-answer - violation of the 4th … .a very simple, straight forward law, violation of which can be easily ascertained.
What language of the original AZ law violates this, or any provision of the Constitution?
The law was amended so as to reinforce the stated intent of the original law, so that demagogues as you and your fellow leftists would stop harping, but no such luck.
Even the US AG, when pressed for specifics, baled with generalities and said that they are still studying the law - the whole 20 pages, to see if and what kind of legal challenge they might bring.
My son in law is hispanic. He and my daughter (of German-Irish descent) live in Phoenix.
Long before the new Arizona law came to be, it has been Sheriff Arpaio’s departmental policy to inquire into the “status” of hispanics, with or without an appropriate pretext. As noted by Anthony, lots of lawsuits over that policy.
My son-in-law has been stopped in his car on several occasions for what appears to be DWB (driving while brown). Maybe the turn signal was a little late or a little early. Maybe the license plate light was not bright enough. And the officer will ask little questions like “who owns this car?” Who is the other person (my daughter) on the motor vehicle insurance?” He is fairly good natured about it. My daughter, not so much.
The irony, of course is that my son-in-law’s ancestors come from Texas, Mexican Texas. For many generations, American citizens.
The Sheriff’s policy is a pretext to snare illegals. The new law, in section 8 of the Arizona Senate bill, predicates inquiry into legal status on two things:
First, “lawful contact made by a law enforcement official…” and then “reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien who is unlawfully present…”
Even assuming the first is properly done, I challenge any of our posters here to define the conditions that fulfill the second, in order to allow a lawful status inquiry?
That’s why Governor Brewer felt she needed the executive order. That second condition is a toughie!
Ultimately, the curb on illegal immigration will come when the jobs the illegals come for are not so easily available.
The question to you, petr, is why should a lawful citizen be harassed because of skin color? Why should an American have to prove he is an American?
First, it seems that you are admitting that the ‘black-letter’ law itself does not provide for or sanction unreasonable search, but rather you are concerned with the execution of the law.
This can be said about just about any law that empowers law enforcement, for example anti-loitering ordinances, and such.
Have you ever driven inland from the Mexican border, surely you must have noticed border checkpoints that require you to slow down for visual inspection. What do you think they are looking for?
When a person is stopped or otherwise detained for a reason other than racial profile, it does not require a whole lot of prowess to ascertain if the person is a foreigner
Inability to speak English, though in the South-West we have made it very easy for anyone to exist very well while being able to speak only Spanish, should definitely be one of the telling signs …absence of valid drivers license or local auto registration, or insurance, are but a few easy examples that certainly do not involve a race …
Secondly, speaking as a naturalized American, thare certainly is and will be some profiling.
This is a backlash against the arrogance of the Latin American invasion. I cannot call most of them immigrants, for they have no desire to become American, but rather would prefer that the border be moved, which is why most do not bother to learn English, yet figure out with the greatest of skill how to partake of the benefits of our open society.
The recent incidents with the national flags at the high schools is but one of many symptoms of such absence of allegiance to, and total lack of respect for the USA.
I’m afraid you’re wasting your time, Charlie. Peter acts like Puppy. He asks a question, ignores the answer, and then asks it again, over and over, on thread after thread.
Peter says, “The law was amended so as to reinforce the stated intent of the original law.”
In fact, that isn’t true at all. When the changes were made to law, Arizona Governor Brewer said, “These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling.”
I choose to believe the Governor rather than Peter.
I know what black letter law is, Peter…but your question makes no sense.
The Governor’s statement was political damage control.
And are you seriously suggesting that all the people who filed suits against the original wording did so because they’re from the “maniacal left”??? Is there some anti-paranoid medicine you forgot to take today?
Supporting the Constitution is not “maniacal”…it’s American.
Carolo1 almost 14 years ago
Stupid
oneoldhat almost 14 years ago
i agree with carolo1 W H is stupid
worldisacomic almost 14 years ago
Stupid is! as stupid does! And Barack Hussein is the poster child.
oddknock almost 14 years ago
Michael Ramirez is a talented draftsman.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
^ I agree. I love to look at his cartoons. It’s usually best if you stop there.
kennethcwarren64 almost 14 years ago
LONE – Made me laugh, also so true.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
He does draw well, but doesn’t read well, like the Constitution, that despite “conservative” thought, actually LIMITS the authority of the individual states, like on issues of immigration, whether from other states, or elsewhere.
fallacyside almost 14 years ago
^Hahaha!
Doreen Rice Premium Member almost 14 years ago
dtroutma - thanks for trying, but this lot is “beyond” facts and reason.
davesmithsit almost 14 years ago
Trout still didnt read the bill huh?
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Lefties don’t need to read bills - its all about feelings … .
0bama, the ‘constitutional’ professor keeps yapping about legal issues without having read them.
On the other hand, if he did read the law, and the amendment thereof, and he still makes such inflammatory statements, it is tantamount to a slanderous defamation of Arizona …
petergrt almost 14 years ago
ps:
Being in the US illegally is under federal law a felony, while under the Arizona law it is a misdemeanor …
CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 14 years ago
The right wingnuts don’t want sanctions on Iran, they just want an excuse to bomb it.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Corosive Frog:
You, and intellectuals as you, are being foolish at our collective peril!!!
lalas almost 14 years ago
So Pete… how does us bombing Iran play out? Would there be any ramifications at all?
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Did read the law as signed, and like the Arizona legislature which is working on amending it, saw Constitutional problems. Those repeating the spiels of Rush, Beck or Coulter(especially) quote myth, based on bigotry and hate, not facts, but call it fact. Coulter on O’Reilly last night was particularly psychotic, even shocking Bill at one point, but she just kept on rambling.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/full-text-arizona-illegal-immigration-law-jan-brewer.html
What section of the new AZ law violates what provision of the US Constitution?
Put-up, or shut-up!!!
The fact that Ann makes lefties go (more) vexed, priceless!
fallacyside almost 14 years ago
Ann is a babe…
lonecat almost 14 years ago
Ann Coulter? Are you serious? Is she the best you’ve got? How did she get famous, anyway? There must be some conservatives who are smart and honest – I can think of a few, anyway. Coulter’s not among them.
Gladius almost 14 years ago
One of the problems I have with the AZ law is the burden placed on local law enforcement. They have been given a new mandate but they do not have the resources to properly enforce the law. If they don’t poperly enforce it, they can be sued which reduces funds in order to pay for legal fees. Ignoring the profiling issue, this part is plain stupid.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Peter: Try reading Article IV regarding several aspects, including Section 2, privileges of CITIZENS.
Amendment XiV- Citizenship rights not to be abridged
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Then there’s the Fourth Amendment as well, where we find that nice “but upon probable cause”- where the Arizona law falls short.
It again is NOT the issue of illegals, (yes, a serious problem in MANY states) rather the infringement on the rights of CITIZENS!
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Again:
“What section of the new AZ law violates what provision of the US Constitution?
Put-up, or shut-up!!!”
Regurgitating leftist talking points is jut that - a vomit.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Just watched two interviews with the US AG as he was asked the very same questions - on specifics about the AZ law v. Constitution.
His answers were the same load of poooop … .
riley05 almost 14 years ago
Poor Petergrt. He brings up the same strawman on thread after thread…
…and when his rhetorical questions are answered, pinning him to the wall…he runs away, and lamely looks for a new thread.
Why do you hate our Constitution so much, Peter?
4uk4ata almost 14 years ago
“Regurgitating leftist talking points is jut that - a vomit”
The 4th Amendment to the US constitution is a leftist talking point? Ooookay. By the way, I wonder if the Arizona congress would have paid the bill for any lost court suits out of their own pockets.
As for the original premise, last I remember the White House hasn’t exactly been going all-out against Arizona, so all the hand-wringing and name-calling here might be a little excessive.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
My, my.
Endless mentioning of the parts of the Constitution that the left feels that the AZ law violates, without citing any offending specifics in the AZ laws is tantamount to what?
Respect for the Constitution?
I even provided a link to the new AZ law - its only 20 pages … .
disgustedtaxpayer almost 14 years ago
the Ariz. law makes illegal entry a lesser crime than the Federal Law, which makes it a “felony”. The problem is that the Feds have not been serious about full enforcement of the law, to the extent needed. The FLOOD of illegals is more at the level of WAR against US constitutional LEGAL immigration. If the beefed-up Bush Border Patrol can’t handle it, use the National Guard.
And I believe in “local police enforcement”….
My copy of the Constitution limits the Federal Government to what the Constitution specifically lists for Fed. authority. All the rest of law enforcement, etc, was given to the STATES for their authority. The Fed has intruded on State authority for a long time, and public education has revised and taught a different history to 20th century students…thus estranging them from the original version and intent.
And there has long been an organized La Raza (racist) propaganda war to push annexation of SouthWest USA to Mexico! Ignoring historic agreed-upon purchases and treaties….
riley05 almost 14 years ago
Peter, why is it you ask a question, and then ignore the answer? Complete waste of time.
You’ve been told on multiple threads that the Arizona law, as originally written, clearly and obviously violated the 4th Amendment, resulting in lawsuits from Arizona mayors, an Arizona policeman, and various other groups.
This, and only this, is the reason that a few days later the Arizona legislature amended the offending section.
There…your question has been answered yet again. And if your behavior on all the other threads is predictive, then I expect we won’t see you again on this one.
(And Howie: Most people on the left don’t consider the Bill of Rights “BS”).
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Anthony, you keep regurgitating the same non-answer - violation of the 4th … .a very simple, straight forward law, violation of which can be easily ascertained.
What language of the original AZ law violates this, or any provision of the Constitution?
The law was amended so as to reinforce the stated intent of the original law, so that demagogues as you and your fellow leftists would stop harping, but no such luck.
Even the US AG, when pressed for specifics, baled with generalities and said that they are still studying the law - the whole 20 pages, to see if and what kind of legal challenge they might bring.
charliekane almost 14 years ago
petr, a personal example:
My son in law is hispanic. He and my daughter (of German-Irish descent) live in Phoenix.
Long before the new Arizona law came to be, it has been Sheriff Arpaio’s departmental policy to inquire into the “status” of hispanics, with or without an appropriate pretext. As noted by Anthony, lots of lawsuits over that policy.
My son-in-law has been stopped in his car on several occasions for what appears to be DWB (driving while brown). Maybe the turn signal was a little late or a little early. Maybe the license plate light was not bright enough. And the officer will ask little questions like “who owns this car?” Who is the other person (my daughter) on the motor vehicle insurance?” He is fairly good natured about it. My daughter, not so much.
The irony, of course is that my son-in-law’s ancestors come from Texas, Mexican Texas. For many generations, American citizens.
The Sheriff’s policy is a pretext to snare illegals. The new law, in section 8 of the Arizona Senate bill, predicates inquiry into legal status on two things:
First, “lawful contact made by a law enforcement official…” and then “reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien who is unlawfully present…”
Even assuming the first is properly done, I challenge any of our posters here to define the conditions that fulfill the second, in order to allow a lawful status inquiry?
That’s why Governor Brewer felt she needed the executive order. That second condition is a toughie!
Ultimately, the curb on illegal immigration will come when the jobs the illegals come for are not so easily available.
The question to you, petr, is why should a lawful citizen be harassed because of skin color? Why should an American have to prove he is an American?
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Charley, you make a couple of good points:
First, it seems that you are admitting that the ‘black-letter’ law itself does not provide for or sanction unreasonable search, but rather you are concerned with the execution of the law.
This can be said about just about any law that empowers law enforcement, for example anti-loitering ordinances, and such.
Have you ever driven inland from the Mexican border, surely you must have noticed border checkpoints that require you to slow down for visual inspection. What do you think they are looking for?
When a person is stopped or otherwise detained for a reason other than racial profile, it does not require a whole lot of prowess to ascertain if the person is a foreigner
Inability to speak English, though in the South-West we have made it very easy for anyone to exist very well while being able to speak only Spanish, should definitely be one of the telling signs …absence of valid drivers license or local auto registration, or insurance, are but a few easy examples that certainly do not involve a race …
Secondly, speaking as a naturalized American, thare certainly is and will be some profiling.
This is a backlash against the arrogance of the Latin American invasion. I cannot call most of them immigrants, for they have no desire to become American, but rather would prefer that the border be moved, which is why most do not bother to learn English, yet figure out with the greatest of skill how to partake of the benefits of our open society.
The recent incidents with the national flags at the high schools is but one of many symptoms of such absence of allegiance to, and total lack of respect for the USA.
riley05 almost 14 years ago
I’m afraid you’re wasting your time, Charlie. Peter acts like Puppy. He asks a question, ignores the answer, and then asks it again, over and over, on thread after thread.
Peter says, “The law was amended so as to reinforce the stated intent of the original law.”
In fact, that isn’t true at all. When the changes were made to law, Arizona Governor Brewer said, “These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling.”
I choose to believe the Governor rather than Peter.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Anthony, what is it that you don’t get about the ‘black-letter’ law?
The Governor’s statement is a political one. She can’t call you and the rest of the maniacal leftists a true name … .and purpose of the amendment.
riley05 almost 14 years ago
I know what black letter law is, Peter…but your question makes no sense.
The Governor’s statement was political damage control.
And are you seriously suggesting that all the people who filed suits against the original wording did so because they’re from the “maniacal left”??? Is there some anti-paranoid medicine you forgot to take today?
Supporting the Constitution is not “maniacal”…it’s American.