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.

 

ACLU chimes in against the AZ LAW with a Class action Lawsuit

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
They need to find a solution to the illegal immigration problem soon. Things have gotten way out of hand and there have been no real solutions. What will happen if this continues? We already have drug cartels and illegal immigrants all across the U.S.A. The government and corporations know that most people are against it and just don't care.

That leaves people to rebel and I would hate to see lives lost wether legal or illegal over this.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkStormCrow
 


You are right if that happened it is bad. The only way I can see AZ implementing this law is by providing a statutory right to sue on "as-applied" violations of Constitutional rights in the enforcement of the law. If AZ simply acknowledges that there could be a potential for abuse of the law that could effect peoples Constitutional rights but creates statutory protections and remedies for those violations there is a higher likely hood the law could stand as Constitutional.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 



Don't derail the topic, stay on point. You are more than welcome to debate me in u2u's or in your Bush Bashing thread or Karl Rove Probing thread.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by prionace glauca]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


Great post Legion. You are right, American courts are intended to cement the law in favor of either party. Courts are a blessing to the arguing population. Let the issues come forth, let the evidence be shown, let the truth prevail, and hopefully let the issues become more clear and in favor of doing the best thing for everyone.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


And I believe they did just that by implementing amendments to their passed law. The took not only the original Federal Law but also refined it to prevent Racial Profiling.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


I agree; we've got people claiming this law has already prompted unwarranted 4th amendment violations... when it hasn't even gone into affect yet? Riiiiiiight...

Sometimes though, and I think my above post illustrates this - the ACLU can be it's own worst enemy. They're attempting to litigate this bill into oblivion when in fact, even if they win, which is questionable, they're simply going to give AZ and it's supporters a much more publicized forum in which to illustrate the problem...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


This whole litigation is there way convincing individuals to pick sides if they haven't done so. And on the basis of what, violations that haven't even taken place because the laws haven't even gone into affect.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


Part of challenging a law is to get a ruling on that law, to use in future litigation. ACLU knows this full and well. If they get one piece of ruling in their favor they can use this to challenge future laws. Most laws are never challenged, and they go on and on without a specific ruling to guide the next case.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 



As corrupt and morally bankrupt as I think our judicial system can be at times, you are dead-on. It's a Godsend for the arguing populace. If nothing else, it will give AZ the chance to at least explain the bill and its revisions so people can (hopefully) stop grossly overstating the powers it gives LEOs. If it gets smacked down, it gets smacked down - but the horse is already out of the barn. Hopefully it will illicit some type of response from the Feds, their stalling for the mid-term elections not withstanding.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


It is an injunctive lawsuit, not really an allegation of wrong doing. If successful it will simply point out where the law appears to be in violation of the Constitution and remand it back to the legislature to rewrite and try again. AZ should be thanking ACLU for possibly pointing out problems with the law before actually suing the state for monetary damages and real issues if the law went into effect.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger

The issue is if the law is Unconstitutional, not how polular it is.
Remember The Constitution? The one ATS members claim to love and honor?

I think this law is very poorly written, and will be found Unconstitutional.
Maybe following existing Federal law would be better.
Guys, Constitutional rights are NEVER a polularity contest, NEVER up for a vote. The majority does not over ride the constitution or decide your rights.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting here.


Thank you for posting that. That is exactly what the issue is. I fully understand the need for better border control and I will fully support any and all ideas that do it legally. I do think illegal immigration is out of control and there needs to be a better way to deal with it. However, this Arizona law does not take current law or the constitution into account.

I saw people in other threads defend the law and say how it is completely insane to call it fascist or any other terms that have been used, and have even come back with a link to show that fascism is only to be applied to Nazi Germany and Italy and so on, but I think fascism can be used for any government or law that displays such behavior. This law violates human rights and allows police to profile, be it a citizen or not, just depending on what you look like. In any case, when is it EVER a good thing to give the police MORE rights over the population? Isn't that what we all here are about? Our freedoms and the government attempts to infringe on them, this being one of them.

Or do some of you think we should help them along and this is leading down a correct path? How about we tattoo IDs on our forearms then, perhaps that will make the police work easier for them.

Kharron



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Very true, although the AZ bill wasn't just poorly crafted. They took plenty of time to model the Law which was originally on the Federal books and refined it to avoid profiling. Since it hasn't gone into affect, any allegation based on potential of profiling is actually prevented with AZ revisions as compared to the Federal Laws alone.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Oh, I know. The ACLU tries to get judicial rulings on legislation to use as precedent against future legislation. The one thing that sticks out to me though, is that one of the precepts of this lawsuit is that AZ is somehow circumventing the Feds authority to enforce their own laws... if that's the case, then wouldn't a decision against one be a de facto decision against the other? Considering that the AZ legislation in its revised form strongly mirrors federal statutes, it seems to me that the ACLU needs to pick a platform; either the AZ law and the ones the Feds have on the books are unconsitutional, or AZ is simply guilty of trying to do an end-around of federal jurisdiction... it's glaringly hypocritical to attempt both.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by Legion2112]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


I will agree that our judicial system has been infiltrated by corporate and state supporting judges. But I do believe there are still a good majority of judges that believe in the people. The judicial system is the peoples check and balance against the other two branches of government. I fully support anyone with a disagreement to take it to court. I will gladly pay extra taxes to keep the courts going full steam to check any abuse of power or disputes between people.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   



Do they realize AZ's law is modeled on federal immigration law. So its ok if the Federal government doesn't enforce it...., but its unconstitutional if any state wants to enforce the same laws.


From the ACLU's faq: They defended the pedophile organization NAMBLA

www.aclu.org...


Why did the ACLU represent NAMBLA?
The ACLU of Massachusetts' represented members of NAMBLA because, while the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children, we do advocate robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit struck at the heart of the First Amendment. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something people find reasonable. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people reject. For more information about the case, please contact the ACLU of Massachusetts.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join