It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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)
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.
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.
We don't need "immigration reform".
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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]
"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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.