Legal Showdown - Arizona's Immigration Law

[darkdog]

Time's ticking... just the matter of time till Supreme Court strikes it down as blatantly unconstitutional and Department of Justice completes its investigation on Arizona officials like Sheriff Joe Arpaio for violation of civil rights, abuse of power, etc.

I wouldn't be so sure. Making bold prediction on how the Supreme Court's going to rule is a good way to end up with egg on your face.

Once the immigration law gets struck down - I call for Governor Jan Brewer's resignation because she knowingly and willfully signed an illegal law. Looking at her political background - she is clearly unfit for duty. That's why former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (a seasoned public servant) was appalled at this.

If every leader who passed a law that was later struck down by the courts got kicked out of office for it, we wouldn't have very many leaders. Constitutional questions are not always cut and dry and two sides of an argument could have compelling points. One can act in good faith to enact a law that later gets struck down by a 5-4 court decision.

By your logic, President Obama and every Congressman that voted for health care should be kicked out of office. It's a blatant overreach of Congressional power to require citizens to purchase health insurance to the government's specifications. I wouldn't be so quick to say it will definitely be struck down by the Supreme Court- after all, the court has made ridiculous decisions in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Actually yes I do have a say. It's called free speech. I can express my opinion to Arizona people to act on it to call for their governor's resignation. Like I said - if the immigration law is struck down as unconstitutional which it will, then they do have legal grounds to call for her resignation.

Straw man of the year award. Notice how she used the word "legally"? Seems to me she was being careful not to imply you don't have a 1st amendment right to comment on it.

 

[darkdog]

Posters have said that illegals do not have civil rights in America. Let's see.....

...

Bottom Line - it is very clear that illegal immigrants DO NOT have all the rights that law-abiding American citizens have such as the rights to vote, possessing the firearms, and many more.

It's entirely two different things to say illegals do not have civil rights and illegals do not have all the rights that citizens have. They do indeed have civil rights, as they should, but not all the rights that citizens have.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying they should have the same rights as law-abiding citizens?

 

[Jiro]

I wouldn't be so sure. Making bold prediction on how the Supreme Court's going to rule is a good way to end up with egg on your face.

and same for others if Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional.

If every leader who passed a law that was later struck down by the courts got kicked out of office for it, we wouldn't have very many leaders. Constitutional questions are not always cut and dry and two sides of an argument could have compelling points. One can act in good faith to enact a law that later gets struck down by a 5-4 court decision.

correction - this is not just "a law". This immigration law is a serious breach of
U.S. Constitution and a blatant disdain to federal law by taking the matter in its own hands.

By your logic, President Obama and every Congressman that voted for health care should be kicked out of office. It's a blatant overreach of Congressional power to require citizens to purchase health insurance to the government's specifications. I wouldn't be so quick to say it will definitely be struck down by the Supreme Court- after all, the court has made ridiculous decisions in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Just so you know - passing a federal bill is not as simple as passing state bill. This health care bill took what? over 30 years? and this Arizona's immigration bill was hastily put together and now already going thru few changes couple days ago.

By your logic - mandatory automobile insurance would be unconstitutional. federal income tax would be unconstitutional.

Straw man of the year award. Notice how she used the word "legally"? Seems to me she was being careful not to imply you don't have a 1st amendment right to comment on it.

I clarified.

 

[Jiro]

It's entirely two different things to say illegals do not have civil rights and illegals do not have all the rights that citizens have. They do indeed have civil rights, as they should, but not all the rights that citizens have.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying they should have the same rights as law-abiding citizens?

If you do not understand what Supreme Court has said for over 50 years, then there's nothing I can do to help you understand any better as I tried in my post #6

 

[darkdog]

and same for others if Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional.

So we're in agreement- it's unwise to make definitive predictions about the actions of the courts either way.

Just so you know - passing a federal bill is not as simple as passing state bill. This health care bill took what? over 30 years? and this Arizona's immigration bill was hastily put together and now already going thru few changes couple days ago.

That bill took 30 years? Are you just making stuff up? I remember that the bill was written up in a matter of weeks and the people who voted for it were quite ignorant about what was actually inside it. But suppose it really did take 30 years. They spent 30 years and still messed it up?

By your logic - mandatory automobile insurance would be unconstitutional. federal income tax would be unconstitutional.

Automobile insurance- 10th amendment. And you only need it if you want to use the state's roads. And you only need it to cover damage you cause to others, not to cover yourself. Even the most liberal interpretation of the commerce clause thus far doesn't allow the Congress to do what they're doing, and it certainly doesn't pass muster as understood by those who ratified the Constitution.

Federal income tax- 16th amendment.

If you do not understand what Supreme Court has said for over 50 years, then there's nothing I can do to help you understand any better as I tried in my post #6

Your post was very informative. I'm just trying to figure out what your commentary was. Do you think illegals should have the same rights as citizens? Do you think they have absolutely no civil rights as it is right now? You're into clarification, so please clarify.

 

[Jiro]

So we're in agreement- it's unwise to make definitive predictions about the actions of the courts either way.

Who cares? If you wanna play it safe - go ahead and be a bench-warmer for us

That bill took 30 years? Are you just making stuff up? I remember that the bill was written up in a matter of weeks and the people who voted for it were quite ignorant about what was actually inside it. But suppose it really did take 30 years. They spent 30 years and still messed it up?

Do I look like I make stuff up? Go find out when did they start working on "universal healthcare" reform. Hint - several Presidents back.

Automobile insurance- 10th amendment. And you only need it if you want to use the state's roads. And you only need it to cover damage you cause to others, not to cover yourself. Even the most liberal interpretation of the commerce clause thus far doesn't allow the Congress to do what they're doing, and it certainly doesn't pass muster as understood by those who ratified the Constitution.

Federal income tax- 16th amendment.

oh really? we can always enact another amendment repealing 16th Amendment to limit federal government's ability to collect taxes from states. therefore - federal government's budget would be funded by federal matters such as tariffs, bonds, whatever. hint - 18th Amendment and 21st Amendment

Your post was very informative. I'm just trying to figure out what your commentary was. Do you think illegals should have the same rights as citizens? Do you think they have absolutely no civil rights as it is right now? You're into clarification, so please clarify.

no. I'm not going to clarify for hundredth times. You can simply read dozens of my clarification here at http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/77167-arizona-governor-signs-immigration-bill.html

 

[darkdog]

Who cares? If you wanna play it safe - go ahead and be a bench-warmer for us

You better hope that you luck out on this one because if the courts end up approving, you've just opened yourself up for a huge "told ya so". Sometimes, the bench is the wisest place to go to retain credibility.

Do I look like I make stuff up? Go find out when did they start working on "universal healthcare" reform. Hint - several Presidents back.

Right now you do. They've been talking about universal health care for longer than 60 years, but the bill itself was written quite hastily and carelessly. Considering how long they spent talking about it, you'd think they'd take the time to get the language right. Besides, it doesn't matter how long they've talked about violating the Constitution- it's still a violation.

oh really? we can always enact another amendment repealing 16th Amendment to limit federal government's ability to collect taxes from states. therefore - federal government's budget would be funded by federal matters such as tariffs, bonds, whatever. hint - 18th Amendment and 21st Amendment

Do you always resort to incoherence when proven wrong? What's so hard about saying "Whoops, you're right on that one"? Or better yet, knowing the Constitution before you rant about it.

no. I'm not going to clarify for hundredth times. You can simply read dozens of my clarification here at http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/77167-arizona-governor-signs-immigration-bill.html

I didn't think simple yes or no questions were so unreasonable, so I might as well give my perspective. Yes, illegal immigrants should have civil rights and they do have civil rights. You haven't proven that untrue. Also, no, illegal immigrants should not have as many rights as citizens do. Even the 14th amendment, which you posted, agrees with that inasmuch as it has no problem with the states restricting voting to law-abiding citizens.

 

[Jiro]

You better hope that you luck out on this one because if the courts end up approving, you've just opened yourself up for a huge "told ya so". Sometimes, the bench is the wisest place to go to retain credibility.

so you're saying the Supreme Court judges who voted "yes" are the fools with pie in the face when the majority vote said it is not unconstitutional? Please grow up and have some balls. One should not cower away and play it safe by sitting on bench for result. Do you know how the result is achieved? There are 2 sides and they hash it out. If one is wrong, one just shakes hand on it and move on. That's the American way. Go ahead and warm the bench for me in case I lost

Right now you do. They've been talking about universal health care for longer than 60 years, but the bill itself was written quite hastily and carelessly. Considering how long they spent talking about it, you'd think they'd take the time to get the language right. Besides, it doesn't matter how long they've talked about violating the Constitution- it's still a violation.

I'm not interested in debating about this any further as you failed to see the point. You can go ahead and argue about whether or not if this bill is constitutional. There are several threads in War & Political News section relating to Obamacare so pick any at your choice.

Do you always resort to incoherence when proven wrong? What's so hard about saying "Whoops, you're right on that one"? Or better yet, knowing the Constitution before you rant about it.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?

I didn't think simple yes or no questions were so unreasonable, so I might as well give my perspective. Yes, illegal immigrants should have civil rights and they do have civil rights. You haven't proven that untrue. Also, no, illegal immigrants should not have as many rights as citizens do. Even the 14th amendment, which you posted, agrees with that inasmuch as it has no problem with the states restricting voting to law-abiding citizens.

Right. that's what I said... and the Supreme Court.... and the Founding Fathers.

 

[darkdog]

so you're saying the Supreme Court judges who voted "yes" are the fools with pie in the face when the majority vote said it is not unconstitutional?

No, because they're not making a prediction- they're making a vote. But you're saying that a governor should be kicked out of office if she only agrees with the minority of the court. So if the minority of a court aren't fools merely for being the minority, how is she a fool for agreeing with them?

Please grow up and have some balls. One should not cower away and play it safe by sitting on bench for result. Do you know how the result is achieved? There are 2 sides and they hash it out. If one is wrong, one just shakes hand on it and move on. That's the American way. Go ahead and warm the bench for me in case I lost

You're talking as if you're teaching me something when you're making the very point I began with. I said it's not wise to make bold unqualified predictions because you never know how the argument's going to come out. And enough with this "have some balls stuff". That's just dumb. I can have my opinion on what it should be, but still refrain from making prophecies about what the court will say.

I'm not interested in debating about this any further as you failed to see the point. You can go ahead and argue about whether or not if this bill is constitutional. There are several threads in War & Political News section relating to Obamacare so pick any at your choice.

I'm smart enough to get the point if you communicate it clearly enough. Truth is, I did get it- I just find it lacking in any useful substance.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?

Sure I do. I just showed you that income taxes are in fact constitutional and that's consistent with my logic. Then you made a non sequitur that income taxes can be repealed by in the future by an amendment, as if that backs up anything you said or contradicts anything I've said. I pointed that out. I think I've contributed plenty.

Right. that's what I said... and the Supreme Court.... and the Founding Fathers.

Thanks. The difference between the words "do" and "should" is quite important and I think that's what was causing the confusion.

 

[Steinhauer]

Foxrac and Steinhauer - please adhere to OP rule



I do not care about what your political view is or what your personal opinion is or if you're a Son of Liberty or an immigrant. Take it to PM land or make a thread about it.

I think I understand. Anyone who actually argues valid points ..... oh, nevermind.

 

[kokonut]

I'm siding with DarkDog. He's the more knowledgeable one here. Plus, he makes sense as in common sense.

 

[Foxrac]

I'm side with Jiro because he is exactly know about related to law and I have feel that Jiro should be our future president.

 

[Jiro]

I'm side with Jiro because he is exactly know about law related and I have feel that Jiro should be our future president.

why thank you but unfortunately I cannot because I'm not American-born but my future kid will be. I will make sure my kid will not conveniently use a lame excuse like "I am part-Korean"

 

[CJB]

I'm side with Jiro because he is exactly know about related to law and I have feel that Jiro should be our future president.

Me too, Jiro obviously did his homework and backed up every one of his points individually as well.

 

[Foxrac]

why thank you but unfortunately I cannot because I'm not American-born but my future kid will be. I will make sure my kid will not conveniently use a lame excuse like "I am part-Korean"

Your welcome.

It is just in my wishes.

 

[Jiro]

I think I understand. Anyone who actually argues valid points ..... oh, nevermind.

says the one who keep hooting - "is it civil rights to enter America illegally?"

 

[Jiro]

No, because they're not making a prediction- they're making a vote. But you're saying that a governor should be kicked out of office if she only agrees with the minority of the court. So if the minority of a court aren't fools merely for being the minority, how is she a fool for agreeing with them?

um.... Look at my OP - "Once the immigration law gets struck down - I call for Governor Jan Brewer's resignation because she knowingly and willfully signed an illegal law."

You're talking as if you're teaching me something when you're making the very point I began with. I said it's not wise to make bold unqualified predictions because you never know how the argument's going to come out. And enough with this "have some balls stuff". That's just dumb. I can have my opinion on what it should be, but still refrain from making prophecies about what the court will say.

I'm smart enough to get the point if you communicate it clearly enough. Truth is, I did get it- I just find it lacking in any useful substance.

ok. then I suppose those several Supreme Court cases and Founding Fathers' belief are lacking in any useful substance for you.

Sure I do. I just showed you that income taxes are in fact constitutional and that's consistent with my logic. Then you made a non sequitur that income taxes can be repealed by in the future by an amendment, as if that backs up anything you said or contradicts anything I've said. I pointed that out. I think I've contributed plenty.

so was 18th Amendment constitutional? every once in a while - people lose a sense of direction. eventually they will come to sense and realize they have made mistake - thus 21st Amendment. We are flawed humans. The Constitution is designed to be fluidic as according to era as the Founding Fathers know it is the only way to do that in order to progress forward, not backward.

Thanks. The difference between the words "do" and "should" is quite important and I think that's what was causing the confusion.

you're welcome.

 

[Reba]

Actually yes I do have a say. It's called free speech. I can express my opinion to Arizona people to act on it to call for their governor's resignation. Like I said - if the immigration law is struck down as unconstitutional which it will, then they do have legal grounds to call for her resignation.

You can talk about it yes but you have no authority to do anything about it. Only the people in Arizona can make that decision. Their representatives will pay attention only to letters from their own state's constituents.

 

[kokonut]

I'm full-blooded Irish American born citizen here. What does that mean? Not much except that I am a U.S. citizen born here. The same goes for my parents grandparents, great, great grandparents, great, great...well, you get the picture.

*kicks a stone*

 

[kokonut]

Reba, am wondering. Ever took law or something similar?