What is Going On in Arizona?

[guido911]

Guido,
Ok, here is a seed question on law related - well, actually it is still political -
Ok, two questions...

First, are there actually any law-related issues that aren't political.  I have thought about this in the past, and I can't really think of anything, even in the civil, that isn't somehow political.  (Personal opinion moment;  I believe that anytime we get away from the basics of the Golden rule and the Ten Commandments we start to lose our way in the weeds and we are by my possibly feeble definition, political.)


Second, how do we reconcile the concept of personal liberty, non-intrusive government, and many fine libertarian ideals with the idea that somehow have not just the right, but the obligation to intrude on so many levels?

No way I can help on the second question. As to the first, whenever I am confronted with a "controversial legal issue, let's say the Citizen's United case which was a huge topic in this forum wherein I defended the Court's decision, I really try to look at it from a "pureness" point of view. Meaning: Does the opinion make sense from a purely legal point of view forgetting (no ignoring) what the societal impact of the opinion might be. In my very humble opinion, I see many folks focusing on the societal impact of an opinion rather than whether the opinion is based on sound judicial jurisprudence. That's why I see (notice I said "I") the law can become political.  I will tell you this, the overwhelming number of opinions that are published every day fly well underneath the radar even though they have significant impact on our daily lives.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And that particular one is a good one.  It went against many years of precedents and I feel it failed to differentiate between types of organizations.  As a lifetime member of the NRA, I have resented the prohibitions of advertising they have endured in the past.  To me, that IS a clear impediment of my specific individual right to free speech because that is a voluntary association entered into freely by myself and a few million of my closest friends.

Corporation sponsorship is a whole different thing that I have also resented because of the requirement that I actually spend my time, effort, and in very real terms my money supporting causes/actions that may or may not align with my beliefs.  My money is very directly involved because if those tens of millions had not gone to the "cause", a small piece of that might have been available for better wages, bonus, benefits, or even better equipment to do the job.  My specific right to free speech is being compromised by the corporation, while I am required to support the free speech of another (usually the CEO or Chairman of the Board).  I choose to be an employee for the corporation - not a political booster.

And on top of that, they get a tax deduction that I subsidize further with my taxes.

Yeah, I know - there ain't gonna be no raise - it will go into the stock options for the CEO - at 15% tax.

How can an entity that was conceived and originated as a tool for economic and social advancement be a "person"?

Peter Drucker;
"Business enterprises- and public-service institutions as well - are organs of society.  The do not exist for their own sake, but to fulfill a specific social purpose and to satisfy a specific need of society, community, or the individual.  That are not ends in themselves, but means.   ---   None of our institutions exists by itself and is an end in itself.  Every one is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. ---  Free Enterprise cannot be justified as being good for business.  It can be justified only as being good for society."

Me;
People, on the other hand ARE ends in themselves.

[custosnox]

Power of enforcement was assigned to congress in the Naturalization clause in I believe the 14th amendment.

It is explained here:

http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html

And if you are referring to Oklahoma's HB 1804 immigration bill, according to this news article from February 2010, the 10th circuit court upheld an injuction blocking 2 of the bill's 3 provisions from being signed into law, meaning they will not be enacted.

"The judges said the two provisions that can not now be enforced are likely to be held unconstitutional."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100202_12_0_DENVER90561

I stand corrected, and yep, that would be one of the amendments I have not had the chance to read.

I knew that parts of the oklahoma HB had been struck down by the inferior courts, and still had not been decided by the superior court (if they take it, haven't been following that closely), but also knew that at least a portion of it stood, which would mean that at least on some level that the states could enforce immigration control.  However the constitutionality of the Arizona laws still must undergo judicial review before they can be said to be unconstitutional.  It is a slippery slope that can really be argued either way because technically it does not regulate immigration, which is what the SCOTUS determined falls into the powers of congress, but regulates how those who are not legal immagrates are treated.  Splitting hairs I know, but it gives some wiggle room for laws and will play out in the courts over time.

Why does my clock say 8:05 pm and the board clock says 7:05 pm??

The forum clock is off. You can sych it with your computer under profile controls

[nathanm]

I couldn't find the word "immigration" during a find search of the constitution. There is this in Article I, Section 8:

The supremacy clause is ^ that way.

I don't know if Congress specifically declared in title 8 that their law on immigration was specifically intended to pre-empt state law. Also, from my quick scanning of Title 8, it appears to give wide leeway to the executive branch, so understanding the relevant regulations is vital to understanding immigration law as applied.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Guido,
The very few times I have been in a union, I also resented the use of any portion of my dues for political contributions.  Both are wrong.

[azbadpuppy]

Come on azbad, I gave you the constitutional provisions just a few posts above. When I talk politics, I will concede I am obviously conservative. When it comes to the law, though, I really do try to do some research so folks here know what the law is rather than what they think the law is. I really want to have good debate on law-related issues.

Not sure what you are implying... I wrote this and posted it in response to another poster, and while doing so you responded with your own research unbenownst to me.

[dbacks fan]

Just a heads up, sounds like this may be a bill coming to a state near you.....

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12372983

[fotd]

Just a heads up, sounds like this may be a bill coming to a state near you.....

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12372983

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/sport-no-one-is-illegal-boycott.html


Echoes of Apartheid:
Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks
EXCERPTS FROM THIS GREAT PIECE OF JOURNALISM!
" This will be the last column I write about the Arizona Diamondbacks in the foreseeable future. For me, they do not exist. They will continue to not exist in my mind as long as the horribly named "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" remains law in Arizona. This law has brought echoes of apartheid to the state.

One Democratic lawmaker has said that it has made Arizona a "laughingstock" but it's difficult to find an ounce of humor in this kind of venal legislation. The law makes it a crime to walk the streets without clutching your passport, green card, visa, or state I.D."

" The Diamondbacks' owners have every right to their politics, and if we policed the political proclivities of every owner's box there might not be anyone left to root for (except for the Green Bay Packers, who don't have an owner's box). But this is different. The law is an open invitation to racial profiling and harassment. The boycott call is coming from inside the state."

" If the owners of the Diamondbacks want to underwrite an ugly edge of bigotry, we should raise our collective sporting fists against them. A boycott is also an expression of solidarity with Diamondback players such as Juan Guitterez, Gerardo Parra, and Rodrigo Lopez. They shouldn't be put in a position where they're cheered on the playing field and then asked for their papers when the uniform comes off."


Counter point?

[fotd]

You don't think they are going to be stopping Canadians, do you?

[dbacks fan]

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/sport-no-one-is-illegal-boycott.html


Echoes of Apartheid:
Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks
EXCERPTS FROM THIS GREAT PIECE OF JOURNALISM!
" This will be the last column I write about the Arizona Diamondbacks in the foreseeable future. For me, they do not exist. They will continue to not exist in my mind as long as the horribly named "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" remains law in Arizona. This law has brought echoes of apartheid to the state.

One Democratic lawmaker has said that it has made Arizona a "laughingstock" but it's difficult to find an ounce of humor in this kind of venal legislation. The law makes it a crime to walk the streets without clutching your passport, green card, visa, or state I.D."

" The Diamondbacks' owners have every right to their politics, and if we policed the political proclivities of every owner's box there might not be anyone left to root for (except for the Green Bay Packers, who don't have an owner's box). But this is different. The law is an open invitation to racial profiling and harassment. The boycott call is coming from inside the state."

" If the owners of the Diamondbacks want to underwrite an ugly edge of bigotry, we should raise our collective sporting fists against them. A boycott is also an expression of solidarity with Diamondback players such as Juan Guitterez, Gerardo Parra, and Rodrigo Lopez. They shouldn't be put in a position where they're cheered on the playing field and then asked for their papers when the uniform comes off."


Counter point?

This from a site that states "Brought to you by the miracle of functioning anarchy" Cute

Ragblog, sounds like a special trash can you'd find in the ladies room.

[dbacks fan]

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/sport-no-one-is-illegal-boycott.html


Echoes of Apartheid:
Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks
EXCERPTS FROM THIS GREAT PIECE OF JOURNALISM!
" This will be the last column I write about the Arizona Diamondbacks in the foreseeable future. For me, they do not exist. They will continue to not exist in my mind as long as the horribly named "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" remains law in Arizona. This law has brought echoes of apartheid to the state.

One Democratic lawmaker has said that it has made Arizona a "laughingstock" but it's difficult to find an ounce of humor in this kind of venal legislation. The law makes it a crime to walk the streets without clutching your passport, green card, visa, or state I.D."

" The Diamondbacks' owners have every right to their politics, and if we policed the political proclivities of every owner's box there might not be anyone left to root for (except for the Green Bay Packers, who don't have an owner's box). But this is different. The law is an open invitation to racial profiling and harassment. The boycott call is coming from inside the state."

" If the owners of the Diamondbacks want to underwrite an ugly edge of bigotry, we should raise our collective sporting fists against them. A boycott is also an expression of solidarity with Diamondback players such as Juan Guitterez, Gerardo Parra, and Rodrigo Lopez. They shouldn't be put in a position where they're cheered on the playing field and then asked for their papers when the uniform comes off."


Counter point?

Find me one pro/semi pro team that has 100% US Citizens on it. Just one thats all I ask.

[fotd]

Come on DBacks. I was expecting an intelligent reply. So, you don't worry about the players. And with the states real estate on it's face a$$ up with little future....oh never mind.

Boycott Arizona. Don't watch their ball teams....don't take vacations there....pi$$ on it. Who needs them? A bad example state of giving us your tired, poor, masses yearning to be free.....soon, we Okies too will be there. And you may wonder why we continue to lose jobs. I want my country back....the one from the 60's and 70's.

You don't think they are going to be stopping Canadians, do you?

[guido911]

Not sure what you are implying... I wrote this and posted it in response to another poster, and while doing so you responded with your own research unbenownst to me.

I was not "implying" anything. I was quite clear that I have provided everyone in this forum with the relevant constitutional provisions. Just venting that after taking the time to look up the info you still misstated the law. Apology given.

[guido911]

And that particular one is a good one.  It went against many years of precedents and I feel it failed to differentiate between types of organizations.  As a lifetime member of the NRA, I have resented the prohibitions of advertising they have endured in the past.  To me, that IS a clear impediment of my specific individual right to free speech because that is a voluntary association entered into freely by myself and a few million of my closest friends.

Corporation sponsorship is a whole different thing that I have also resented because of the requirement that I actually spend my time, effort, and in very real terms my money supporting causes/actions that may or may not align with my beliefs.  My money is very directly involved because if those tens of millions had not gone to the "cause", a small piece of that might have been available for better wages, bonus, benefits, or even better equipment to do the job.  My specific right to free speech is being compromised by the corporation, while I am required to support the free speech of another (usually the CEO or Chairman of the Board).  I choose to be an employee for the corporation - not a political booster.

And on top of that, they get a tax deduction that I subsidize further with my taxes.

Yeah, I know - there ain't gonna be no raise - it will go into the stock options for the CEO - at 15% tax.

How can an entity that was conceived and originated as a tool for economic and social advancement be a "person"?

Peter Drucker;
"Business enterprises- and public-service institutions as well - are organs of society.  The do not exist for their own sake, but to fulfill a specific social purpose and to satisfy a specific need of society, community, or the individual.  That are not ends in themselves, but means.   ---   None of our institutions exists by itself and is an end in itself.  Every one is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. ---  Free Enterprise cannot be justified as being good for business.  It can be justified only as being good for society."

Me;
People, on the other hand ARE ends in themselves.

I am not ignoring your point, just that I laid out my case throughout this thread already:

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14896.0

[heironymouspasparagus]

Guido,
I know.  Reply optional.  That post was just listed as my overall thoughts on it.  I separate organizations into their categories.