Judge Blocks Sections of Arizona Immigration Law

I read another article about immigration is draining the economy in Arizona. So that mean the legal or illegal Mexicans are scare of being customers in the business world. Arizona need them to keep the business going. It seem Arizona is the only state that has a problem with it all because of Governor Jan Brewer. She really rile every one up especially Mexicans. :hmm:
 
AndyE9503 said:
They just did a better job of wording it
Click to expand...

The "better job" of wording it specifically prohibits stopping on the premise of checking immigration status, and that means that if the practice occurs, there is punishment for the law enforcement official guilty of such.
 
This really infuriates me because the people of Arizona have spoken-they passed this law. How can one person go against the people? This solidifies what I believe-America is no longer the free, democratic country I have alway thought it was. Regardless of what side your on-this is another blow to our freedom however misguided you might think the law was. Same goes with sames sex marriage in California-regardles of what side your on, the people of California voted and were against sames sex marriage. Then one person-a judge overturns it. Thats exactly like communism to me or like having a King :( Voting doesn't count anymore-why bother.
 
cdaigle430 said:
This really infuriates me because the people of Arizona have spoken-they passed this law. How can one person go against the people? This solidifies what I believe-America is no longer the free, democratic country I have alway thought it was. Regardless of what side your on-this is another blow to our freedom however misguided you might think the law was. Same goes with sames sex marriage in California-regardles of what side your on, the people of California voted and were against sames sex marriage. Then one person-a judge overturns it. Thats exactly like communism to me or like having a King :( Voting doesn't count anymore-why bother.
Click to expand...

What if the people gathered enough signatures on a petition and then passed a law allowing slavery? Would that be okay with you? I don't care what kind of laws are passed as long as they are constitutional.
 
cdaigle430 said:
This really infuriates me because the people of Arizona have spoken-they passed this law. How can one person go against the people? This solidifies what I believe-America is no longer the free, democratic country I have alway thought it was. Regardless of what side your on-this is another blow to our freedom however misguided you might think the law was. Same goes with sames sex marriage in California-regardles of what side your on, the people of California voted and were against sames sex marriage. Then one person-a judge overturns it. Thats exactly like communism to me or like having a King :( Voting doesn't count anymore-why bother.
Click to expand...

We have judges to rule the law out if it is related to constitution so voters don't make right choice to do with laws.

I support judge to interpret the law if it is constitutional, that what US has done for over 200 years. I don't support voter based to pass the law because they can be bigot, discrimination or restriction our liberties so that why judge has rule it out.
 
cdaigle430 said:
This really infuriates me because the people of Arizona have spoken-they passed this law. How can one person go against the people? This solidifies what I believe-America is no longer the free, democratic country I have alway thought it was. Regardless of what side your on-this is another blow to our freedom however misguided you might think the law was. Same goes with sames sex marriage in California-regardles of what side your on, the people of California voted and were against sames sex marriage. Then one person-a judge overturns it. Thats exactly like communism to me or like having a King :( Voting doesn't count anymore-why bother.
Click to expand...

huh? whoa. so you're ok with the state creating law that interferes with federal government? or trumps over federal law?
 
Beowulf said:
What if the people gathered enough signatures on a petition and then passed a law allowing slavery? Would that be okay with you? I don't care what kind of laws are passed as long as they are constitutional.
Click to expand...

There you go. The majority can always be in favor of laws that are discriminatory and violate the rights of the minority. Simple mathematics shows that. However, it doesn't mean that the majority is right.
 
Beowulf said:
What if the people gathered enough signatures on a petition and then passed a law allowing slavery? Would that be okay with you? I don't care what kind of laws are passed as long as they are constitutional.
Click to expand...

I knew someone was going to chime in with a ridiculouse analogy, okay, let me answer your question with a question, would it be okay if the people voted to abolish slavery but a judge votes against it and passes the law to allow slavery?
 
Jiro said:
huh? whoa. so you're ok with the state creating law that interferes with federal government? or trumps over federal law?
Click to expand...

Yes,
A state has a right to pass it's own laws. We are the United States of America, not the America of the United States. If you really study the United States and how it came to be you would understand that the federal goverment should only concern themsevles with defending the constitution and all states within from outside aggressors. All this other crap the feds have their hands in is unconstitutional.
 
cdaigle430 said:
Yes,
A state has a right to pass it's own laws.
Click to expand...
every state has the rights to pass its own laws but they cannot pass the law that supersedes or interferes with the federal law.

I take it that you're supporting the state passing the state law that supersedes federal government. Do you know what this means? It means you are against the Constitution. You are against the United States of America.

cdaigle430 said:
We are the United States of America, not the America of the United States.
Click to expand...
but that doesn't make any sense at all. What Arizona doing is not in the best interest of United States of America. Arizona is supposed to cooperate with USA, not against USA.

America of the United States? I don't know what that is. America means USA. America is just a short name for United States of America.

cdaigle430 said:
If you really study the United States and how it came to be you would understand that the federal goverment should only concern themsevles with defending the constitution and all states within from outside aggressors.
Click to expand...
If you really look carefully and think carefully - Arizona's new law is interfering with the federal government's ability to defend the states from outside aggressors.

cdaigle430 said:
All this other crap the feds have their hands in is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
like what?
 
cdaigle430 said:
Yes,
A state has a right to pass it's own laws. We are the United States of America, not the America of the United States. If you really study the United States and how it came to be you would understand that the federal goverment should only concern themsevles with defending the constitution and all states within from outside aggressors. All this other crap the feds have their hands in is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Might want to check that assertion. A state can pass their own laws...however, ALL states are subject to Federal law, and it always supercedes state law. And that is the premise behind the debate on Arizona's law. There is already Federal law on the books that covers the situation. All they have to do is observe and enforce it.

Edit...should have read Jiro's relpy first! LOL
 
cdaigle430 said:
I knew someone was going to chime in with a ridiculouse analogy, okay, let me answer your question with a question, would it be okay if the people voted to abolish slavery but a judge votes against it and passes the law to allow slavery?
Click to expand...

If slavery was constitutional, sure.
 
So does this mean it is unconstitutional for the police to stop a drunk driver. What about inquiring whether a person is over 21 if they appear drunk?
 
Steinhauer said:
So does this mean it is unconstitutional for the police to stop a drunk driver. What about inquiring whether a person is over 21 if they appear drunk?
Click to expand...

Wondering how did you come up with that reasoning.

FYI - immigration enforcement is federal duty. it's in the Constitution. and beside - the federal law enforcement cannot enforce DUI as it is the state/town/city matter. DUI enforcement is not a federal duty and it's not in the Constitution.
 
Back
Top