Notice the new button, in my
index column, at left.
It will be a permanent
link to the ACLU page
on efforts to curtail or
eliminate the plainly
unconstitutional Arizona law.
Do let your voice be heard.
Human dignity is for
everyone -- without exception -- as
are the freedoms our founders bestowed upon us.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Slightly Off-Topic -- But An Important Campaign
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
good job.
Right on!
You carry your papers with you everyday. You answer questions when you get pulled over, if you ever do, without batting an eyeball. You show your papers when you get on an airplane.
Before you dig in your position, why don't you go visit a farmer or two on the border and get some reality training? It would do you good.
Arizona is not about hating Mexicans. This is about illegals breaking our laws.
Thanks, one and all.
Actually Anon. No. 3, I know more about this than you might think -- having lived half my life in the Southwest.
I support sensible immigration policy.
I also believe the borders are solely within the power of the FEDERAL government to regulate, and police -- See, e.g., Art. I, Sec. 9; Art. II, Sec. 1; and Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the US Constitution.
Finally -- as a matter of fundamental liberty rights -- the act of "simply being" in the United States cannot -- without more -- subject me to any search of my person, or papers -- without violating our Fourth Amendement.
No state -- not even mighty Arizona(!) -- may abridge that right, without violating the Article I, Section 10 -- the Supremacy Clause:
. . .No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal. . . .
No state shall. . . lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws. . . .
This is not a measure to "inspect goods", by the way.
The correct answer here is a federal answer -- one that protects everyones' rights. [This is, quite literally, how and where fascism begins, and democracy dies.]
Namaste, just the same.
We agree that a sensible immigration policy is best. The Federal Government would be the most logical way to approach the problem, but the Federal Government is not "protecting them against invasion" (Art. 4, Sec 4.) and Arizona is "actually invaded and in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."(Art. 1,Sec. 10)
Every state has an inherent "police power," which allows the state to legislate for the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its people. Art I, Sec. 8 lays squarely the responsibility of the Federal Government to suppress insurrections and repel invasions". howevder, the Federal Government has abdicated their sacred responsibility to protect the border - just ask Rob Krentz' family. (Some of the border guards are stashed cleanly 60 miles from the border. Why?)
The Arizona law is constitutional on its face and if very careful in its administration, the police power exercised will protect its citizens. States are not necessarily barred from regulating illegal immigration.
De Canas v. Bica (1976),Plyler v. Doe (1982) are worthy of review. Arizona law does not contravene the preemption doctrine because it provides for "concurrent" enforcement of federal law".
NeoFacism is a trait of the left, inspite of Progressives trying to lay it to the right. The Arizona law, on the other hand helps to encourage respect for the rule of law. The flagrant disregard of immigration laws by illegal aliens and the federal government's failure to properly enforce those laws tends to demoralize law abiding citizens and sets a terrible example for young people, who should understand that they live in a society in which all persons are expected to abide by the law and that those who fail to do so will be punished.
Our Republic is worth protecting, even at its most Southern border.
Best wishes.
Interesting, Anon. No. 5 --
Please explain, in very clear terms, how it is that all the Federalist Papers (many authored by the founders, themselves) recite that these states' "repelling an invasion" power, found in Art. I, Sec. 10 apply only, and solely -- to invasions by militias of foreign powers -- i.e., uniformed soldiers, marching in columns, for example.
Don't bother -- you cannot.
This is not an "invasion" by any stretch of the imagination -- unless you purport to assert that young women, many with children-in-tow, here looking for honest work (that the residents of Arizona are largely unwilling to do, themselves), and at a fair wage -- are actually covert agents of Mexico's standing army.
That notion is simply preposterous -- and in any event, randomly checking the papers of all brown people (i.e., racial profiling -- in violation of the Fourth Amendment), without any good-faith objective cause to believe the person is not lawfully present in Arizona, will IN NO WAY "repel" any invasion.
If you are right, the invasion is over. Thus the states' power to "repel" has ended.
The law is unconsitutional on its face -- it is simply a license to harrass people of color. The Supremes will not allow this usurpation of soverign federal power to persist. Arizona's law is a political stunt. And a very reprehensible one, at that.
Namaste, just the same.
We must zoom out to 10,000 feet. The founders may not have imagined the use of the term "invasion" as I have used it, it no less is one. I reject your "preposterous" claim as well as the law being used to "racially profile". Of that, there is no indication, it is just the left posturing and in the process not allowing CITIZENS the safety that they are legally and lawfully promised by their own federal gov't who shamefully is AWOL on the issue.
A stunt? Reprehensible? I think not. Perhaps when you grew up in the area the majority of border crossings were by the innocents you describe. The mafia is at work now - read the hearing transcripts. Where did the rights of CITIZENS go in all of your thought processes? What about them?
Best Wishes back at you.
Okay -- one more shot at this, for Anon. No. 7 --
Look, words have meanings. They have context -- and the context matters.
Just as the Second Amendment's right "to bear arms" does not encompass the right to carry a locked and loaded shoulder-mounted rocket-launcher (or Uzzi, if you prefer) through the streets of New York City or Tuscon, the words of Article I, Section 10 should not be tortured to suggest that an act of war is underway in Arizona.
It simply is not.
We agree that the federal government ought to do more, but that doesn't give the State of Arizona license to wax, vigilante style, on its OWN citizens.
The way the founders created our legal scheme PRESUMES that the people are free -- to do anything they please, or nothing, at all -- in stark contrast to some of the systems the founders' forebearers fled, to arrive here. In Germany, back then -- and to an extent, even now -- anything the law did not AUTHORIZE, was PROHIBITED.
The opposite of course, was adopted here, under our system -- so it is NO answer, from a constitutional analysis perspective to say "no one has misused the law, yet".
We (through the Supremes, as our proxy) proactively review all laws to prevent usurpations of the people's freedoms.
Here, we strike down laws that abridge (or even attempt to regulate) classes of political speech -- we don't wait to see whether they are used wisely, or not so.
Your argument seems to presume that Arizona has a right to act in this area. It simply doesn't.
To pass muster, Arizona must affirmatively prove that its goofy scheme is the least restrictive scheme possible -- in deference to the peoples' Fourth Amendment rights -- to be secure in their papers and persons. Arizona plainly cannot sustain that burden.
Finally, to answer your earlier suggestions -- note that driving a car, or boarding an airplane (each requiring ID to be available) -- involves AFFIRMATIVE conduct not present in the Arizona law.
Simply "being" inside the state of Arizona is now (purportedly) grounds for a search -- and that, the Fourth Amendment will never admit.
It will -- and should -- fall.
We can both agree that we should each advocate to our US Reps and Senators and President that more be done to address the needs of both the citizens and the undocumented workers of Arizona.
But more than that, Arizona is not allowed. Our founders set it up this way on purpose, to protect us ALL from these sorts of abuses by the States themselves.
Namaste
Yes, you deserve the last word, it is however your blog so feel free to do what ever it is you will. I must comment, nonetheless:
"but that doesn't give the State of Arizona license to wax, vigilante style, on its OWN citizens." You must be tired, it must be late. You err on two fronts here: Arizona has engaged a very prominent team to write the legislation so as not to be "vigilante style". They have carefully written the bill and it will pose great arguments because it supports Federal legislation ALREADY IN THE BOOKS, concurrently.
"anything the law did not AUTHORIZE, was PROHIBITED." You must be from a Dillon state. Where we live, Non-Dillon always trumps.
"To pass muster, Arizona must affirmatively prove that its goofy scheme is the least restrictive scheme possible -- in deference to the peoples' Fourth Amendment rights -- to be secure in their papers and persons. Arizona plainly cannot sustain that burden." We shall see.
"Simply "being" inside the state of Arizona is now (purportedly) grounds for a search." This view is simply ill-informed and not how the law will be administered.
"more be done to address the needs of both the citizens and the undocumented workers of Arizona." Agreed. Citizens,aliens and illegal aliens all have various responsibilities in the United States. We need to see those respects citizens and does not trash the fact that they are citizens. Illegals are illegal for a reason.
By the way, it is a pleasure to boycott California in the process. Best to you.
Arizona's law (SB 1070) will be held "unconstitutional, on its face" by the United States Supreme Court, if it is not repealed or very substantially amended between now and when this case is ultimately granted cert. The complaint-at-law (a 98 page PDF file), then:
. . . .SB 1070 is unconstitutional. It violates the Supremacy Clause and core civil rights and civil liberties secured by the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expressive activity, the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection Clause guarantee of equal protection under the law. . . .
To show that I am not just whistlin' here -- I'll gladly pay a dollar to anyone (up to 100 takers!) -- if I am wrong. Either leave a real name and address, or a PayPal ID -- and, in return, each person so leaving an ID/name will agree to place a dollar in my Pay-Pal account, when (if) it turns out I am right. Deal?
Feel free to leave your contact details, or a Pay-Pal ID (for receipt of payments, only), here.
Namaste, to all of good will.
This morning, USDC Judge Susan Bolton has indefinitely stayed the effectiveness of the most controversial portions of the Arizona law:
". . . .The parts of the law that the judge blocked included the sections that called for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times. Judge Bolton put those sections on hold until the issues are resolved by the courts. . . ."
Sanity makes a comeback.
Namaste
Post a Comment