Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

A. You don't need ID unless your in a vehicle.

be sure to apply that idea when entering a military base on foot.

and i've been asked for id when entering the local courthouse too.

Edited May 19, 2010 by charles!

[SMOKE 1,426]

I'm talking the constitution (in general) being interpreted beyond it's original context. The second amendment is an example of this.

no you're not. you're reaching to make an arguement that a slaves rights amendment should include illegal immigrants. and you are failing miserably.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

no, but you'll do better i'm sure.

It was an example, Charles. I'm sure you can understand that.

And your personal feelings on the issue aside, you don't have to look very hard or very far back to see that the interpretation of the second amendment has been a thorny and ongoing issue in various courts across the country.

This wouldn't be the case if the constitution wasn't subject to interpretation.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

It was an example, Charles. I'm sure you can understand that.

And your personal feelings on the issue aside, you don't have to look very hard or very far back to see that the interpretation of the second amendment has been a thorny and ongoing issue in various courts across the country.

This wouldn't be the case if the constitution wasn't subject to interpretation.

maybe because those courts can't grasp "...shall not be infringed"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

no you're not. you're reaching to make an arguement that a slaves rights amendment should include illegal immigrants. and you are failing miserably.

Because you say so, eh?

Sure thing

Why is one part of the constitution open to interpretation (as proven by innumerable court cases) and not another (which has also been subject to numerous court hearings). Nothing about this is clear cut.

maybe because those courts can't grasp "...shall not be infringed"

The fact that you see it as being unambiguous is totally irrelevant to the fact that the debate is larger and older than you are

Edited May 19, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[_Simpson_ 250]

Yes of course, legally that is the only way they can avoid the issue of racial profiling, they ask everyone.

Regardless to race anyone who cant speak English,unable to produce ID and is a acting nervously probably is illegal and further investigation is justified. Considering the amount of legal Mexicans in AZ being Mexican will never be enough reason for cops to be concerned. If its a white guy speaking German and can meet the criteria above he will also come under the same scrutiny. Lets just let the cops do there job.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Because you say so, eh?

Sure thing

Why is one part of the constitution open to interpretation (as proven by innumerable court cases) and not another (which has also been subject to numerous court hearings). Nothing about this is clear cut.

keep reaching. or just give an actual reason why illegal immigrants fall under this protection. while doing this remember slaves didn't come here willingly for personal gain & illegal immigrants do.

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

The fact that you see it as being unambiguous is totally irrelevant to the fact that the debate is larger and older than you are

it is unambiguous. if you think it is, maybe you can try to explain it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Regardless to race anyone who cant speak English,unable to produce ID and is a acting nervously probably is illegal and further investigation is justified. Considering the amount of legal Mexicans in AZ being Mexican will never be enough reason for cops to be concerned. If its a white guy speaking German and can meet the criteria above he will also come under the same scrutiny. Lets just let the cops do there job.

Cops do make people nervous, it has been known. Some of them are right arseholes.

it is unambiguous. if you think it is, maybe you can try to explain it.

No Charles, that's your opinion and it is completely irrelevant. The fact that there have been numerous court cases across the country prove that it is not unambiguous.

It's a question of simple fact.

[DukeOfYork 28]

A. You don't need ID unless your driving a vehicle.

B. Does ICE make daily traffic stops

I've made bold your last statement. Someone posted a legal opinion. You ignored that opinion and began to trash talk the poster.

A. We must have to in Illinois, because my ID has been requested every time I've been a passenger in a car that was pulled over for speeding.

B. No, but if they have reason to suspect, they can act. Why can't AZ cops?

I ignored the opinion because it was just that, an opinion. If someone claims something is unconstitutional, demonstrate it. Don't pull and Eric Holder/Janet Napolitano and make claims without understanding/reading it and then not be able to back up your argument with facts. If opinion is all that is needed for debate, we could just spend our time pitting Glenn Beck against Ed Schultz!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Regardless to race anyone who cant speak English,unable to produce ID and is a acting nervously probably is illegal and further investigation is justified. Considering the amount of legal Mexicans in AZ being Mexican will never be enough reason for cops to be concerned. If its a white guy speaking German and can meet the criteria above he will also come under the same scrutiny. Lets just let the cops do there job.

When in public there are no laws that require English or ID, so unless such laws are made the argument is invalid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

keep reaching. or just give an actual reason why illegal immigrants fall under this protection. while doing this remember slaves didn't come here willingly for personal gain & illegal immigrants do.

I'm just asking you to concede that the constitution is open to legal interpretation.

If you can't do that, then you're not being honest.

[The_Dude 1,142]

and i've been asked for id when entering the local courthouse too.

Charles, that was just a fat bailiff chick who wanted to know where you live so she can stalk you.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

A. We must have to in Illinois, because my ID has been requested every time I've been a passenger in a car that was pulled over for speeding.

B. No, but if they have reason to suspect, they can act. Why can't AZ cops?

I ignored the opinion because it was just that, an opinion. If someone claims something is unconstitutional, demonstrate it. Don't pull and Eric Holder/Janet Napolitano and make claims without understanding/reading it and then not be able to back up your argument with facts. If opinion is all that is needed for debate, we could just spend our time pitting Glenn Beck against Ed Schultz!

A. You may have been asked, but its not required.

B. Suspect what?

OT is about opinions. Stop attacking El E. just because you don't want to bother responding to his post.

[DukeOfYork 28]

I stand corrected on the DL/ID thing. From this article:

Kobach said the Arizona law itself bars officers from relying on illegal factors like race, color, or ethnicity in making reasonable suspicion determinations.

One likely scenarioHe offered an example of a likely scenario faced by local officials: An Arizona police officer stops a van driving erratically in a remote area known as an alien smuggling corridor.

“You might have a vehicle overloaded, no one in the vehicle has any identification whatsoever. The driver of the vehicle is acting evasively and trying not to answer the officer’s questions, perhaps one person in the vehicle concedes that he is unlawfully present [in the US],” Kobach said.

“At that point the officer would have reasonable suspicion that the other occupants in the vehicle are unlawfully present [in the US], and at that point this law requires the officer to [contact a 24-hour federal immigration hotline] to verify whether the individuals are lawfully or unlawfully present in the country,” he said.

Kobach said mere failure to have a driver’s license is not reasonable suspicion under the Arizona law. “It is two or more of these individual factors, then the totality of circumstances exist” to authorize the federal contact, he said.