SB 1070: Most Controversial Component IS Constitutional

[Phatscotty]

Wait ... they sided with Obama on 75% of his points and struck down three of the law's four provisions as unconstitutional. And that was with Kagan abstaining.

Scott, you would have been a good publicist for Evil Knievel. After his rocket cycle jump over the Grand Canyon in which he broke 28 bones landing on the other side and was hospitalized for two years, the press release would have read ...

"EVIL KNIEVEL SUCCESFULLY JUMPS GRAND CANYON!"

you are right. Except it's not about how much of it was upheld or struck down, it's about how the part Obama and co. attacked the hardest and called racist and Unconstitutional, was upheld. The other 75% that was struck down is only because the same laws already exist federally. Obama did not get up in arms about the 75% though, it was the 25% he bashed us with, and that 25% is what we were right about and Obama was wrong about.

I understand not much will change, mostly because Obama isn't enforcing the federal law anyways, but it does deal a victory in this argument to us, even if it is for bragging rights. We were right

[Bones2484]

Funny... weren't you the one who started a new thread saying you would no longer participate in threads with intentionally misleading titles?

[Phatscotty]

The other parts aren't unconstitutional, they are just unnecessary.

[saxitoxin]

I understand not much will change, mostly because Obama isn't enforcing the federal law anyways, but it does deal a victory in this argument to us, even if it is for bragging rights.

OK. Participation Trophies have never been my thing but I guess they can be self-esteem boosters in some cases.

[AndyDufresne]

The other parts aren't unconstitutional, they are just unnecessary.

What they upheld might not be constitutional either, it just runs 'parallel' and not 'past' federal enforcement. Some legal analysts seem to suggest that if the employment of the clause requiring documentation / papers is based on racial or ethnic profiling, then there might be a challenge on those grounds.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

Funny... weren't you the one who started a new thread saying you would no longer participate in threads with intentionally misleading titles?

It's ok if HE makes misleading titles.

[saxitoxin]

Today's headlines -

CNN
Blow to Immigration Law - Court to Arizona: You Went too Far

FOX
Supreme Court Reins in Arizona Immigration Law

World Net Daily
Supreme Court Stomps on Arizona Immigration Law

ConquerClub
Arizona Immigration Bill: CONSTITUTIONAL!

something seems out of place ...

[Phatscotty]

Sorry about that fellas

My dog ate it

Obama was still wrong about the part that got upheld, which is the part that we have mostly been arguing over, in this thread anyhow

[PLAYER57832]

Obama was still wrong about the part that got upheld, which is the part that we have mostly been arguing over, in this thread anyhow

Funny you keep saying that, because a real reading of the ruling reinforces the legality of the Executive BRANCH of the US government setting various immigration standards and rules. In short, the federal government can tell the states it just does not have the time or resources to worry about young individuals who have been here a long time and who are not causing trouble, those who have honorably served in the military, etc.

AND.. even the approval of the citizenship checks is pending verification that it won't be used wrongly. One could easily say that far from endorsing the ideas, it is, instead giving Arizona enough rope to hang itself... and thus setting an easy precident.

But keep trying to claim there is only one legal branch of the US government and that Phattscotty is the leading expert on the US constitution.

[Night Strike]

Obama was still wrong about the part that got upheld, which is the part that we have mostly been arguing over, in this thread anyhow

Funny you keep saying that, because a real reading of the ruling reinforces the legality of the Executive BRANCH of the US government setting various immigration standards and rules. In short, the federal government can tell the states it just does not have the time or resources to worry about young individuals who have been here a long time and who are not causing trouble, those who have honorably served in the military, etc.

AND.. even the approval of the citizenship checks is pending verification that it won't be used wrongly. One could easily say that far from endorsing the ideas, it is, instead giving Arizona enough rope to hang itself... and thus setting an easy precident.

But keep trying to claim there is only one legal branch of the US government and that Phattscotty is the leading expert on the US constitution.

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed. Obama has refused to do that when it comes to an arbitrary segment of illegal immigrants.

[PLAYER57832]

Obama was still wrong about the part that got upheld, which is the part that we have mostly been arguing over, in this thread anyhow

Funny you keep saying that, because a real reading of the ruling reinforces the legality of the Executive BRANCH of the US government setting various immigration standards and rules. In short, the federal government can tell the states it just does not have the time or resources to worry about young individuals who have been here a long time and who are not causing trouble, those who have honorably served in the military, etc.

AND.. even the approval of the citizenship checks is pending verification that it won't be used wrongly. One could easily say that far from endorsing the ideas, it is, instead giving Arizona enough rope to hang itself... and thus setting an easy precident.

But keep trying to claim there is only one legal branch of the US government and that Phattscotty is the leading expert on the US constitution.

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed. Obama has refused to do that when it comes to an arbitrary segment of illegal immigrants.

Go read tbe prevailing justice arguments. You are arguing with them, not me. I am just pointing out that phattscotty was falsely identifying what was said and not said and what Obama did.