Arizona Immigration Bill is Unconstitutional, page 5

reply to post by autowrench

---

Excellent comment aw.

I was going to create a thread using JJ Johnson's testimony videos awhile back.

I never got around to it. That damn red neck racist! /s

As for what the founding father's would have done. There would be a lot of federal gov swinging from gallows due to their treasonous acts.

Like I said aw, excellent comment.

reply to post by endisnighe

---

The sad part of this is, people are afraid to take on the government, for fear being thrown in prison. That is why people need to band together to take this monster on.

And that is what our government has become, a monster. It has become so big, it has become an entity of it`s own, with it`s own life, and goals. The problem is, the people don`t fit into the picture of what the government wants. We are the flunkies who pay their bills, and nothing more.

To a degree, it is our own fault it has gone this far. We have just stood in the background and kept our mouths shut, while the government made it`s power grabs over the years.

reply to post by Light of Night

---

The law on its face does not discriminate against any racial group, however, in practice Hispanics are likely to get disproportionately targeted. The Arizona Police are not going to target a blond haired, blue eyed Canadian named John Smith unless he says "I'm getting oot of here." The Arizona Police will likely target a dark skinned guy named Juan Martinez, even if Juan Martinez' grandparents were born and raised in the US.

Even if the law does not discriminate against any racial group, the law does discriminate against illegal aliens. If you read my post about the 14th amendment, the law will not likely be upheld by the courts because it would be subject to strict scrutiny.

reply to post by Oneolddude

---

To address your two points

1. Federal law trumps state law. If the federal government decides that the federal government will be the only one to enforce federal immigration laws, then the federal government law prevails. The states cannot go against the wishes of the federal government and enforce federal laws.

To give you an example, California's medical marijuana laws do violate federal law. The Supreme Court says so. Although the local police will not arrest you for medical marijuana in California, the federal police (FBI) can still prosecute you for medical marijuana in California.

2. The internment of Japanese Americans clearly violated the Constitution. Just because the US government violated the Constitution during WWII, it does not mean Arizona can violate it today.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Oneolddude

---

To address your two points

1. Federal law trumps state law. If the federal government decides that the federal government will be the only one to enforce federal immigration laws, then the federal government law prevails. The states cannot go against the wishes of the federal government and enforce federal laws.

To give you an example, California's medical marijuana laws do violate federal law. The Supreme Court says so. Although the local police will not arrest you for medical marijuana in California, the federal police (FBI) can still prosecute you for medical marijuana in California.

2. The internment of Japanese Americans clearly violated the Constitution. Just because the US government violated the Constitution during WWII, it does not mean Arizona can violate it today.

And I have to disagree with you on the part of the states can`t go against the wishes of the Fed. When the government is not doing what they were elected to do, then the states have every right to go against them. The Fed. is not enforcing the immigration laws. And now it`s time the states step in. That is what the constitution is all about.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by FiatLux]

reply to post by kozmo

---

Excellent points. Flagged.
In addition, if the Federal Government had done their job, which they haven't there never would have been a need for this bill. Good for Arizona- 70% of Arizonans support this bill.
I got a kick out of one of the posts that said that although the bill probably didn't violate the rights of citizens, it DID violate the "rights" of illegal aliens. Interesting- now the illegals are entitled to rights under our Constitution? What next- let ax murderers loose, because we can't violate their right to chop people up? Liz Borden would love these libs.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

---

Alright, what is your stance then on Wyoming's law on in State gun laws, whereby the State has told the Federal government NO federal law can supersede State law when in regards to 2nd Amendment rights of gun ownership?

Constitutionally speaking, not the federal government's position of their overpowering legislation, the State has the very right to pass laws that do not infringe on the Constitution. Whereby the federal government's own position breaks the Constitution.

To me this falls under the "color of law" category. Where the legislation, in regards to gun ownership, is obviously and categorically un Constitutional.

2nd Amendment-A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Shall NOT be infringed. One could argue even placing a sales tax on guns is un Constitutional.

I would also bring into this argument the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Whereby the issue of immigration not being directly stated in the Constitution the right of the State to enforce immigration could be considered directly relevant to this Amendment.

Also, by the very actions of the federal government of failing to enforce federal immigration laws is by it's failure to enforce, abrogates their own position. What I mean by this is, if one makes a factual contention in a court and the opposition does not refute it, then it becomes a factual representation.

The States have asked for help and has asked for enforcement, by the very actions of the federal government to not address the issue has made it a factual representation that it is giving up their right on the issue. Hence, the State now has the right and the duty to enforce it's own position on immigration.

I would also bring to the argument that any and all legislation, court precedent or case law; has always been superseded by the Constitution so is in fact only color of law. The federal government, in several places in the Constitution, is required to defend against invasion, by their very actions to NOT defend Arizona has also abrogated their right to continue in their position of defender from invasion.

I know the purpose of the federal government's position here. I would contend the very reasoning behind the lack of the defense of our borders is to suspend the Sovereignty of the US of A and bring us into a possible union with both Mexico and Canada. Now, if at anytime this avenue is breached by any member of the federal government, a court would HAVE to issue a warrant for the arrest of any official in the federal government for sedition and treason against the US of A.

So in conclusion, I think the federal government better walk softly on this issue if they do not want to lose all their gains in illegal power over the last 100 years. This could be the splinter in the lion's paw that gave it gang green and killed it!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

I guess if a police officer says he has "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant, then that would be considered "probable cause". Is that in compliance with the 4th amendment? I'm thinking so.

There is no "I guess" about it. That is how a police officer does his/her job. If an officer has a
"reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed, he/she is bound by duty to arrest the perpetrator. Don't you watch TV? Haven't you ever seen an arrest? This is directly in compliance with 4th. Amendments provisions on the one hand, and protects the innocents on the other hand.

reply to post by Light of Night

---

Text From the Bill)

PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Nothing un-Constitutional about that, that is the same criteria I myself have to adhere to and I live in Ohio, not Arizona. When a police officer demands my State issued ID, I am bound by law to produce such ID, and I believe all 50 States have very similar laws. The documents mentioned are considered to be legal because of what one has to do to get one in the first place. If I go into the DMV with no paper, no Social Security card, birth certificate, they are not going to issue a license to me. Can anyone one of you get a Driver's License with no paper to prove citizenship?

Application for Ohio Driver License – Ohio Revised Code Section 4507.06 (A)(1)(a)
Application for Ohio Identification Card – Ohio Revised Code Section 4507.51 (A)(1)

Every application for a driver license, motorcycle operator’s license, endorsement, identification card or duplicate of any such license, endorsement or identification card, shall be made upon the approved form furnished by the registrar of motor vehicles and shall be signed by the applicant, and by the applicant's parent or guardian if the applicant is under age eighteen and shall contain the applicant's name, date of birth, social security number if such has been assigned, sex, general description, including height, weight, color of hair, and eyes, residence address, including county of residence, duration of residence in this state, and country of citizenship.
Initial (First-Time) Application for Vehicle Registration – Ohio Revised Code Section 4503.10 (A)(7)

Except as provided in Ohio Revised Code section 4503.10 (J) [Application for registration under the international registration plan...], applications for registration shall contain the owner’s social security number, if assigned, or, where a motor vehicle to be registered is used for hire or principally in connection with any established business, the owner’s federal taxpayer identification number. The bureau of motor vehicles shall retain in its records all social security numbers provided under this section, but the bureau shall not place social security numbers on motor vehicle certificates of registration.

bmv.ohio.gov...

We residents also have to sign an Affidavit that states no laws or fraudulent forms of ID are used. Lie on an official document(s), you commit a felony.

Memorial day thoughts.
  Posted 3 days ago with 11 member flags

Global governance and the challenge to the American Constitution
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags

Explosive Scoop on Obama from Breitbart.com
  Posted 10 days ago with 1 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: