Supreme Court strikes down most of the Arizona Immigration law

If the NDAA is harmless, why did Judge Forrester, an Obama appointee, issue an injunction against its enforcement? And why did the Judge, when the Obama administration said it was going to limit the scope of the injunction, reissue her opinion, stating that the limitations on the scope were ineffective?

The Heritage Foundation is simply wrong this time. They know they are wrong. They are providing cover for the statist Republicans and Tea Partiers on this issue.

Read the law for yourself. The language and intent are clear. The Heritage Foundation is really disappointing in this. I used to respect them, but they are Republitons.

Hey, WW! I'm even doing some of your work for you. Here is an article about Justin Amash, a congressman from Michigan, who has co-sponsored a bill to reverse the effect of the NDAA that the Heritage Foundation doesn't think exists.

http://garamendi.house.gov/legislati...ir-trial.shtml

Hats Off to Tea Partier Justin Amash!



Now, let's see how many other Tea Partiers support his bill.

The Tea Party are not anti-government zealots like the libertarians; they are limited government folks.

And the fact that Tea Party members do/do not support your stupid over-over-the-top rant "that NDAA is the most offensive attack on liberty we have ever seen" is proof of nothing.....

The Tea Party are not anti-government zealots like the libertarians; they are limited government folks.
..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yea COG, the Tea Nuts want to spend everybody eleses money on shit they believe in!
Unlimited government for things they believe in and limited government for eveybody else!

Speaking of Tea Nuts, wtf happened to JD? He crushed that Hatch blew the Tea Wack outta the water last night?

I don't ever remember the law being about stopping people for the sole purpose of "checking" their papers. It always was about asking the question during a "legitimate" stop........I use quotes there. Because, we all know how easy it is for a cop to find a legitimate reason to stop anyone. Originally Posted by dearhunter

Better re-read what the SC said..lol

...and by the way as was stated before they left it open for all the civil lawsuits that are about to come AZ's way. Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

This is EXACTLY what happens. Used to when I’d bail someone out (My ex owns a large plumbing contracting business.), it was a race to get them out before the inmate was transferred out. Now, ICE is in every police station in the Houston area. I’m sure it’s the same way all throughout the Southwest. There is no chance to bail them out before they are remanded to ICE.


The heart of the bill was upheld. Show me your papers, and if you don’t have them, you are arrested and remanded to ICE. None of this would be necessary if the feds would just enforce the laws already on the books. If someone is caught here illegally the first time they are simply detained and then deported. If they are caught a second time they are SUPPOSED to serve a five year, federal prison sentence and then deported. If they did that, they would be a lot fewer repeat offenders.

We also need to deincentive illegals. The is absolutely no reason for us to subsidize illegal parents and their children if there are any legal children of the illegal parents. At the agency level we could do more than any new law can ever do. Just make it mandatory that a legal parent must apply for government aid.

Everyone here realizes just exactly what these "papers" consist of..... right? Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I never understood why AZ wouldn’t take a DL as proof of citizenship. You have to a SSN to get a DL. It seems easy to me.

..and I might add, law enforcement is already voicing concerns about having to be "immigration" checkers because as it was stated in the news "most are not trained for this and it could be a slippery slope to enforce"... Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

They do it all the time anyway. Every time an officer stops someone driving and they don’t have a driver’s license they are checking someone’s immigration status. In some parts of Houston that are heavily Hispanic, you’ll local police pulling people over for “traffic” violations and federal authorities processing people of questionable immigration status.


Bottom line is they shouldn't be rewarded for breaking our laws the way they are.

It seems to me, that the baby's right to life, trumps the mother's right to privacy. Particularly since, the so called "right to privacy" was invented by the court. For approximately two hundred years no court had ever found a general right to privacy in the Constitution until 1965.

I know it's not the Constitution, but Jefferson said we had a god given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He didn't mention privacy. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I never said a single thing about a right to privacy.

I never said a single thing about a right to privacy. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

I guess I misunderstood your post. You didn't mention privacy directly, but you did talk about the mother's rights.

Referencing abortion, you said: "Either choice violates the right of a person. This is because pregnancy is the only thing in all of humanity where two people's rights coexist in the exact same time and the exact same place."

I took this to mean, the conflict of the right of the baby to live and the right of the mother to choose to abort or not. The mother's so called right to choose is based the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade ruling which guarantees abortion rights because of the belief that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy.

One of the shallower observations in the Sandbox this year. What do you expect?? The TP to stand for spending on stuff they oppose?

What a numbskull!

Yea COG, the Tea Nuts want to spend everybody eleses money on shit they believe in!
Unlimited government for things they believe in and limited government for eveybody else!

Speaking of Tea Nuts, wtf happened to JD? He crushed that Hatch blew the Tea Wack outta the water last night? Originally Posted by WTF

Libertarians are not anti-government. They are anti-tyranny and pro-effective, responsible and constitutional government. Pull your head out of your Republibot ass.

WW, so the fact that the NDAA gives the military and President the authority to pick anyone up for any reason, imprison them indefinitely, and deny them any sort of court review, is not a threat to freedom. Where in the hell do you come up that bullshit?

Oh, yeah. The Republibots don't believe it, even though that is the clear language of the law.

You are an embarrassment.

The LP can claim to be whatever to whomever, but they cant win national or statewide elections and they cant influence public policy on the issues you care about. You should speak kinder of the Tea Party we are your best hope to a smaller / smarter / efficient /less intrusive federal government.

Hug a Tea Party activist....one incremental change after another.

WW, so the fact that the NDAA gives the military and President the authority to pick anyone up for any reason, imprison them indefinitely, and deny them any sort of court review, is not a threat to freedom. Where in the hell do you come up that bullshit?

Oh, yeah. The Republibots don't believe it, even though that is the clear language of the law.

You are an embarrassment.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

same rules applied to the president who is no longer president ... find another dead horse to kick

You forgot to add the biggest threat ever!!!
Foolish bloviating by you embarrasses the serious minded Libertarians!

WW, so the fact that the NDAA gives the military and President the authority to pick anyone up for any reason, imprison them indefinitely, and deny them any sort of court review, is not a threat to freedom. Where in the hell do you come up that bullshit?

Oh, yeah. The Republibots don't believe it, even though that is the clear language of the law.

You are an embarrassment.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, the indefinite detention provisions were specifically asked for by Obama. Democrats, Republicans and Tea Partiers overwhelmingly supported the provision.

And even if it did exist under the Bush administration, it was wrong, unconstitutional and anti-American. It also means we should be even quicker to overturn it.

What is this fetish you have, CBJ7, that requires you to compare everything to Bush? He is not president! Are you saying W is the standard by which we must assess all Presidents? That if the Bush administration got away with something, we can never demand that future Presidents adhere to a higher standard? Please clarify if wrong.

You forgot to add the biggest threat ever!!!
Foolish bloviating....



Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I hope you enjoy your indefinite detention. You don't refute, you just add more smilies which shows how right you are.

But you're not. You're even more of an embarrassment.