It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizona Immigration Bill is Unconstitutional

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd

Your link about racial profiling being illegal is referenced in your link as being upheld by the US Supreme Court in the case of Batson vs. Kentucky. That much is true; however, Batson vs. Kentucky did not address racial profiling as it is being addressed in this thread or in the article which spawned it:

In Swain, the court recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause". But they ruled that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In Batson the court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case. They explain further:

    The defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire [jury pool] members of the defendant's race. The defendant may also rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate. Finally, the defendant must show that such facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.

The decision also held the following:
  • a State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely excluded;

  • A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors; and

  • the peremptory challenge occupies an important position in trial procedures.

(BBCode formatting mine)
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

The case your link is based on is itself based on jury selection procedures and not on law enforcement actions.

In the second place, even if there is a US Supreme Court ruling that states that racial profiling by law enforcement is illegal, SB1070 does not state that racial profiling will happen; it states 'reasonable suspicion', which has been upheld as a legal and proper standard to warrant detainment and investigation. Your contention that that requires racial profiling is an assumption that is not based in fact.

Tell, me, though... if one cannot check someone suspected of being an illegal alien near the Mexican border, exactly how in Hades is anyone supposed to actually enforce the border laws?

Check every non-latino guy just in case he might be a Mexican?


TheRedneck




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





SB1070 does not state that racial profiling will happen; it states 'reasonable suspicion', which has been upheld as a legal and proper standard to warrant detainment and investigation. Your contention that that requires racial profiling is an assumption that is not based in fact.

Absolutely true. I spent a great deal of time on another thread, responding to the following claim from a poster:



Surely the number of Latin Americans in the US stripped of Constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure is greater than the number of American fighting for THEIR Constitutional protections via the Tea Parties.

Of course, I pointed out that the bill never mentions Latin Americans or any other ethnic group, but is directed at suspected ILLEGAL immigrants. Nowhere is racial profiling either mentioned or implied.
In fact, many of the people who have objected to this bill, have NOT read it, but are just getting what LITTLE knowledge they have of the bill, from the Lame Stream Media. Of course, many of them have an agenda.
As BH corrected pointed out, this bill is trying to handle what is EXPLICITLY the Federal government's job, but the Feds have failed to carry out their responsibilities.
This failure to act is not only the current administration's failure, but the failure of every administration in the last 40 years.
There is no doubt that greedy commercial and agri-businesses are the drivers behind the influx of illegals. I don't blame the illegals for trying to feed their families, but I do blame the government and the businesses for this situation.
As I've said before, this country cannot sustain the economy now, and it is only getting worse. We don't need "immigration reform". We merely need to enforce the laws on the books now. Then we wouldn't have to be debating whether Arizona's bill is unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

We don't need "immigration reform".

I believe we probably do. The immigration process is certainly outdated and could be streamlined in many ways. But I will not support any immigration reform until such time as the laws that are already on the books, that are already the responsibility of the Federal government, are enforced to their utmost and the problems we now face due to the oversight of the Federal government has been completely resolved.

At that time, I will be all for making it as easy and expeditious as practical for those wanting to be a citizen of this great country to become such.

We tried this dance some time back: we gave amnesty to the illegals already here, in return for an assurance from Congress that this situation would never happen again and that the border would be patrolled. Those promises were never kept. This time, no promises will be accepted; I want to see action.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck


In the second place, even if there is a US Supreme Court ruling that states that racial profiling by law enforcement is illegal, SB1070 does not state that racial profiling will happen; it states 'reasonable suspicion', which has been upheld as a legal and proper standard to warrant detainment and investigation. Your contention that that requires racial profiling is an assumption that is not based in fact.



Of course the bill doesn't explicitly state that racial profiling will take place. No legislator in their right mind would write that in plain English. However, the actual implementation of the bill will clearly involve racial profiling on the part of law enforcement. I don't think anyone is denying that, including yourself.




Originally posted by TheRedneck

Tell, me, though... if one cannot check someone suspected of being an illegal alien near the Mexican border, exactly how in Hades is anyone supposed to actually enforce the border laws?

Check every non-latino guy just in case he might be a Mexican?




Constitutionally, I don't think there is a valid way for law enforcement officers to uphold immigration laws. In fact, I would even go as far as to say it is not their job. Illegal immigration is a federal crime (despite what Arizona wants to think), and LEO's have more important things to worry about then whether Jose has his papers in order. When illegal immigrants commit crimes they become criminals just like when legal Americans commit crimes. That is when it is time for law enforcement to deal with them, not when they are behaving lawfully. It is up to the INS (or whatever it's called now) to deal with them until that point.

The obvious solution (I can't believe Arizona ignored this one in favor of their terrible solution), is to investigate and penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants. While this still will not completely solve the problem, it would be a step in the right direction.

I know that it is an ugly situation, and a lot of people don't like the illegals being over here (me included). However, beginning to racially profile, and requiring all citizens to carry proof of citizenship and identification at all times is not the solution. It is a short-sighted reaction on the part of Arizona's that fails to asses the cause of the problem, and only attempts to tackle the symptoms. Not to mention that it completely violates the rights of every single American Citizen who is detained because they don't have proper ID.




We need to solve illegal immigration at the border, and not on our side of it. I know it seems like an obtuse way to do it, but it is the only way to ensure the rights of American citizens, which is paramount when considering new legislation.

What we absolutely need not do is allow state legislature to violate the Constitution. If we allow it to slip on this one issue, then soon enough it will be allowed to slip on other issues. We are selling our freedoms away for security, and I believe there is a rather pertinent quote from a fairly well-known founding father regarding that very concept.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd

Of course the bill doesn't explicitly state that racial profiling will take place. No legislator in their right mind would write that in plain English. However, the actual implementation of the bill will clearly involve racial profiling on the part of law enforcement. I don't think anyone is denying that, including yourself.

It really depends on your idea of profiling. I remember an old Ron White joke that went something like:

I was arrested for driving drunk, which is illegal... I found out they were stopping everyone driving on that particular sidewalk that day, and that is PROFILING!

Funny, but also insightful. What is profiling? In the area of law enforcement, Wikipedia gives three separate types of profiling: offender profiling, racial profiling, and sexual orientation profiling.

This indicates that profiling can take many forms beyond simple racial profiling. In its broadest sense, profiling is establishing the likelihood of guilt or innocence based on characteristics. If someone is attacked and reports that they were attacked by "a black man", does it make any sense to start checking out white men or black women? They are already eliminated by the witness, so the police can concentrate on black men as being possible suspects. That, sir, is profiling in its broadest sense. It is also the only realistic way to capture the criminal.

Now, if there were no indication of the race of the person involved, then it would be wrong to only suspect black men... in that case, there is no indication that race may be a clue to the possibility of a person's guilt or innocence. That, my friend, is the true nature of what I consider improper profiling practices. And I would hazard to guess that most people would agree, possibly even you.

Now, let us apply this to the present situation. What is the possibility of a white female, dressed in business attire and driving a Mercedes of being an illegal immigrant from Mexico? Precious little. what is the possibility of a Latino male, driving a rusted 1980-something Chevrolet economy car that is belching smoke out the exhaust pipe while carrying 7 people in it of being an illegal immigrant? Quite higher. Is that profiling? Yes! Could that Latino male be a legal US citizen? Sure! Is it somehow morally wrong to make that distinction anyway? I say no. It is logical and reasonable.

in this case, simply due to the fact that the crime itself combined with the location identifies a particular race as being more likely to be guilty, racial consideration when deciding whether or not to question a person about possible criminal activity is proper.


Constitutionally, I don't think there is a valid way for law enforcement officers to uphold immigration laws. In fact, I would even go as far as to say it is not their job. Illegal immigration is a federal crime (despite what Arizona wants to think), and LEO's have more important things to worry about then whether Jose has his papers in order.

Actually, it is the duty of all law enforcement officers to uphold all the laws. There is no separation of duties based on one law being the sole responsibility of one group. Certainly the ICE (last known incarnation o0f the INS) has primary responsibility, but that does not mean they do not depend on local law enforcement to enforce the laws as well.

Counterfeiting is also a Federal crime; try to pass a fake note to a sheriff deputy for payment of a fine some time and see how fast you get nailed.

It also goes a lot deeper than just having papers in order. Those who cross the border illegally are criminals. They have broken the law. Period. There is a reason we have immigration laws, and it is not because someone wants to punish Mexicans... there is no country in the world, no matter how wealthy or prominent, that can single-handedly support the entire global population! And certainly the United States at present, with already broken budgets and massive deficits cannot do so. The choice is not between helping a people and not helping them; it is between helping a people to the extent that we destroy ourself or helping as many as we can so as not to destroy ourself.


The obvious solution (I can't believe Arizona ignored this one in favor of their terrible solution), is to investigate and penalize businesses that hire illegal immigrants. While this still will not completely solve the problem, it would be a step in the right direction.

I will assume you haven't read the actual law yet, then. They did. They made it harder for employers to use the entrapment defense, which apparently has been a huge problem with prosecuting them, made it illegal under state law to hire an illegal immigrant, and instituted a new agency specifically for the purpose of fighting illegal immigration. Now, while it is not specified that this new agency will target those who illegally hire illegal immigrants, it does not say they won't either. I suggest we give Arizona a chance to demonstrate their intent on this issue before passing judgment.

TheRedneck


[edit on 4/24/2010 by TheRedneck]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Ah, it's always a pleasure Redneck, there's a reason I have you on my friends list after all.

I can see that you have some very solid points. I stand by my interpretation that the bill is unconstitutional, but I will give them a chance to try and enforce this without racially profiling. As I imagined, I think the general disagreement over the legality is whether or not profiling should be considered kosher behavior by law enforcement. I still believe that it should not, however I don't deny that it is used regardless.

I have mixed feelings about the interpretation of the state cracking down on businesses that hire illegals, but if they do then I will gladly recant my statement. To me, that is still the best solution for handling illegal immigrants within our borders.

I still do not think we should be actively deporting illegal immigrants who behave lawfully, but instead should be trying to assimilate them into taxpaying citizens. I know that this is something not many agree with me on, and I will agree to disagree.

My only real issue is that this basically mandates the carrying of ID for Arizona citizens, which is something I am vehemently against. I know that under normal circumstances most people carry them, but it should still not be mandatory in situations where it would otherwise not be necessary.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd

As it is always a pleasure debating with you.


I am not exactly a proponent of this bill either; it seems a little to open to interpretation by law enforcement as well as being unnecessary except for the fact that the Federal government refuses to do their job. Unfortunately, that last fact is the reason it exists at all IMO.

Perhaps if the opposition to closing the borders from a while back hadn't been so vehement; perhaps if something had been done to at least try and correct the problem, this bill would not have been passed. But, as I have stated before on this topic, read my signature: Be careful what you ask for; you might just get it. The people who opposed enforcing immigration laws back then asked for this; now they regret it. I only hope, as you do, that it does not begin to be a burden to those citizens of Arizona who now get to live with this law.

Because that saying of mine cuts both ways.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Light of Night
 


Erwin Chemerinsky is one of the most respected scholars of Constitutional law in the country. Anybody who has went through the Barbri Bar Exam Prep courses has seen him give 8 hour lectures on Constitutional law off the top of his head without notes. I would defer to his opinion.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by endisnighe
As for Constitutional, how can a state law, passed to enforce a federal law, be un Consitutional?


It's not the enforcing of the federal law that is unconstitutional. It's their method of enforcing it that is unconstitutional.

4th Amendment



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One can argue that illegals have no constitutional rights...and they would be 100% correct. However, the very first American citizen that is subjected to scrutiny under this law will have had their 4th Amendment right violated.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Aggie Man]



pulling someone over and asking them to identify themselves is what cops do. all the bill does is give them the ability to ask for a person to prove they are citizens. it isn't a free search away card. its a "sir, can you prove that you are a citizen" card. who is going to be asked? mexicans.

"oh but thats rasist" no more rasist than saying mexicans are illegally immigrating.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
As far as those who are citing the constitution in this thread are concerned, you are all missing the most important section...the 14th amendment and the case law that surrounds it.

The 14th amendment reads in part, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law." The 14th amendment applies to all people, not just citizens or legal residents. It guarantees all people due process.

Under the case law, when states make laws that threaten illegal aliens, they are subject to strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the laws will only withstand judicial scrutiny if they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to further that interest. Even if keeping Arizona free of illegal aliens is a compelling state interest (it probably is not as compelling interests involve serious threats to security), the law is not narrowly tailored.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thank you sir(or maam) for the information you have put together!

I will gladly add my two bits here.



"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion."

Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.


The states will stop making laws that clarify law enforcements responsibilities to their LEGAL citizens residing within its borders,when the Federal government enforces all of the Constitution not just the parts they want.

California passed medical marijuana laws that went against Federal law and little to nothing has been done by the feds.

I think the Legislature and the Governor of Arizona are all honorable and great Americans.

i]reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 




The 14th amendment reads in part, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law." The 14th amendment applies to all people, not just citizens or legal residents. It guarantees all people due process.


Apparently FDR and the Democratic party officials running this country during WW2 "misinterpreted" that part of the Constitution when they locked up the Americans of Japanese descent.

And they (the illegals) will receive "due process of law"after they are rounded up and lock in detention facilities!

What is the Obama and his administration actually going to do if the good people of Arizona tells his administration to pack sand?

Show them his fake birth certificate?



[edit on 25-4-2010 by Oneolddude]

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Oneolddude]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
It's too bad the States do not have any representation in the Senate.

I'd tend to agree that State immigration laws, from my personal understanding, tend to overstep their position. This is, for once, actually one of the jobs of the Federal Government, and I say that almost NEVER!

We need practical solutions, yet we have two sides. One that says "SEND EM ALL BACK, DAMN THE COST", which is stupid, and the other that wants to just pass out another failed amnesty to increase voters of their party.

Sad since neither side has anything practical or worthwhile to say.


Patriot Act and Healthcare reform, and serving Israel over America (dual citizenship), and MANY other things are outright ILLEGAL per the Constitution. Sadly,there are LEGAL ways to become U.S. Citizens, and if you are here illegally, you have a right (humanitarian) to be stabilized if ill, then transported to wherever you came from (then charge YOUR government for the costs). Then, it makes people want to reform THEIR countries. Globalists want no borders, one world government, Illegals are being used to tear our state budgets down.

Here illegally=NO Constitutional rights, as you are NOT a citizen. Censorship and other crap is illegal also--go cry about those things.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 



A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.


This is an excerpt for the actual bill that was signed into law. Here is the link to the actual bill.

So the bill actually makes it illegal for Cops to racially profile. So I can really care less what this guy says. I can read and this legislation is actually not cryptic legalese.

If you go your whole life listening to the "experts" without actually looking for yourself you will end up believing what the "experts" want you to believe.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


you americans and your love of the justice system is gonna cost you a lot.




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
There are people from countries ALL OVER the WORLD that become legal citizens in America the PROPER way all the time. A certain country's people from beyond our southern borders REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE RULES required by EVERYONE else. And individuals are here defending this CRIMINAL ACTIVITY!! THIS IS ABSURD PEOPLE!!



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Does it matter? That is a question that many should ask, yet none have answered, does it really matter that this is a law that is going to force the federal government to take action concerning illegale immigration, and what will those actions be? The reality is that this is not the first time Arizona has tried to stem and deter illegale immigration from its state boarders, and something tells me that this will not be the last. About 10 years ago they passed a measure that would deny social services for those who were illegale immigrants and it was shot down by the US supreme court, so they are going to do this with in the laws this time.
The other question and it is one that I keep hearing is about the rights of illegale immigrants. What rights are they entitled to? They have broken the law by crossing the boarder illegally. Does State and Federal Laws, as well as the Constitution of the United States of America now apply to the entire world, or just its citizens and the running of this country? Would you be willing to forgive someone who has broken the law so easily? How about Bernie Madoff? He broke the law, no one got hurt, he just stole alot of money from alot of people, do we forgive him, let him go free with just a slap on the wrist? Or how about the guy who raped and murdered 2 teenage girls in San Diego California, do we forgive him for his crime, stating that he was just misguided? And what of all of the other people in the prisons and jails around the country? We can not turn around and ignore one class of person who breaks a law, to do such, that is discrimination. From what I have read on this law and have heard, now when the police respond to a crime in the state of Arizona, they will have to determine if a person is a citizen of the US or if they are an illegale immigrant. There will be no raids, no stopping the person on the side of the street. It makes the government accountable for enforcing all of the laws, not just pick and choose. And if it is sucessful, and it reduces down the numbers of illegale immigrants, then what would be the consequence of such? And will it matter?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


For the record, never use a CNN poll as evidence for anything ever again.

My political analysis professor would have laughed in your face.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court.


Is an illegal even protected under the US constitution? If so, please just skip to the next post with my apologies for wasting your time. If not...

Does a party not require standing to bring a case to court? If so, how on earth does an illegal gain standing of any kind? (unless perhaps they try for refugee status?). Also, how can a US based group have standing on behalf of an illegal when the case has bugger all to do with a US citizen or someone covered by the US constitution?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 



Starred and wish I'd said that! You are correct, no doubt of that. I myself have been calling for the Stares to secede from the Union, (read that CORPORATION) for as long time now, even made a post on it with little interest at the time...www.abovetopsecret.com...
From that post:
"Would any colony have agreed to join the Union if it had known it would have to fight to get out?

The Union was a creation by the states, not the other way around. The United States is a voluntary association created by the states and states have and had every right to secede. The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address stated that, "the American idea [is] that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them at will whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established." Similarly President James Buchanan in his annual message to Congress in 1860 said, "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens...If it can not live in the affections of its people, it must die."

Under Article V of the Constitution, it notes, three-fourths of the states may abolish the federal government. Under the precedent established in Article VII, it said, fewer states can withdraw.

If a state or region wanted to secede, that would be the public sovereignty or democratic decision. The will of the people should be respected.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing states from seceding - so a Constitutional Amendment should not be necessary. According to the Tenth Amendment, all non-specified rights belong to the states."

The following points are from my own posts in another forum, i will post links to those posts. Magickman is me, so I will not add quote marks.

Secede from the US?
"The United States federal government has violated its Constitution many times. These violations against the soveriegnty of the people prove its tyranny.

The time has come for the people of this nation to stand up and demand the reinstitution of the Bill of Rights. If the god-given rights of the people are not restored in a timely manner the people need and are right to take up arms against it.

Today the people are only free during elections and that is not a certainty any longer. The very act of electing your leaders does not make you free. You are free when there are certain inalienable rights that those leaders cannot ever steal from you.

We no longer enjoy such a freedom. The second amendment has been violated as many as 20,000 times [every gun law] in this nation according to some reports. It has been promised by those holding office to be violated many more times.

Now even the first amendment is under fire from everything from Universities with their 'speech codes', to the United Nations. The UN itself is an entirely illegitimate organization, has called for permits and licensing of webpages.

The media, once a watch-dog of the government has become nothing more than a cheerleader. The journalists of today feel threatened by the internet, a tool of communications which they fear bypasses thier ability to desiminate information at thier leisure.

Journalists want to have journalism considered a profession. They want journalism to be practiced only by those so ordained such as is with medicine.

Freedom has withered to the point where the Constitution is meaningless in the operation of government. The rights of the states has become whatever the federal bureaucracy says.

Illegal acts of government are ignored because they are, in some instances popular. The media continues to act in a role desiring further expanding of government. The more government there is, the less freedom exists.

How long shall we continue on our present course toward statism? The illegimate government needs to be reigned in as soon as possible. A revolt is necessary of one sort or another to grasp the attention of the general population. Action is required if we are to over-come the goliath of the bureaucracy.

Today government on every level acts as if the will of the people have no merit. They act as if they bestow whatever rights and benefits the people enjoy. They act as if the government has the power to give and to take power and sovereingty without regard to anything else. They act as if the power were theirs to give and not the power guaranteed by God alone.

As Thomas Paine put it: "...we discover that governments must have arisen either out of the people or over the people. In those which have arisen out of the people, the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and soveriegn right, have entered into a compact with each other to produce a government; and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise.
This compact is the constitution, and a constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. Whenever it cannot be produced in visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to government, and a government is only its creature. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government.
Can, then, Mr.Burke produce the English constitution? He cannot, for no such thing exists, nor ever did exist. The English government is one of those which arose out of a conquest, and not out of society, and consequently it arose over the people; and though it has been much modified since the time of William the Conqueror, the country has never yet regenerated itself, and is therefor without a constitution."
These words are in The Rights of Man which was written in response to Edmund Burke whom criticized the French revolution.

Therefore I find it necessary to call for a revolution and the restoration of Constitutional rule in these United States. The illegitimacy of this government has come to the point of being indisputable. There is hardly an agency within it which is in alignment with the Constitution.

There are those who believe that the government of today is a necessary evil, but I ask if it truly is necessary in its present form?

Where in the Constitution does this government derive its power to regulate the first amendment? The second? and all the others?

You cannot regulate an inalienable right, it is a contradiction and a violation of the rights we are supposed to enjoy in this land.

My call to arms is not necessarily the call for an armed struggle against the leviathan state. It is not necessarily the call for the active destruction of state properties, it being such today as a form of suicide.

What I call for today is the active mass non-compliance with the illegimate laws and acts of the state. For if a movement be large enough it does not need the majority to take part."

Immigration, or Invasion?
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 (Saw this coming!)

Seems Arizona saw something coming too..this from 2000
Resolution: Abolish Federal Government

Articles of Confederation, and Comment

What Would The Founding Fathers Do?

And to end, TPTB can never say they were not warned.....

J.J. Johnson, Former Militia Leader Speaks before Senate



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





At that time, I will be all for making it as easy and expeditious as practical for those wanting to be a citizen of this great country to become such.

My friend, you fail to consider the economic consequences of what you propose. The reason that there are quotas is to ensure that the US can handle the number of immigrants coming to this country at a given period of time. Remember, that we have 10% U-2 unemployment, and close to 17% actual unemployment. In addition, many jobs are being taken away from Americans by illegals who are working for less than state or federal regulated minimum wages dictate.
As you know, my friend, several of my children are adopted from Latin America, and my wife and I had to wait over four years for our last child, but we were willing to do that, because it was the law.
The economic consequences of allowing 30 million people to immigrate to the US in an "expeditious way", would completely overwhelm our fragile economy, already at the brink of complete collapse. Until we can ensure that we have jobs for those who want to immigrate, WITH FEDERAL and STATE minimum wage laws obeyed, we cannot allow what you suggest.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join