Filipinos Against Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where in the constitution does it protect us from having to carry papers. I see where it protects us from anyone searching our 'papers' without warrant or probably cause.

Think about that logic. Why would a law abiding citizen have to carry with them, identification at all times and be subject to imprisonment for not doing so? Do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned a free country like that?

As for where to find it in the Constitution - my friend, if you think every right of yours if spelled out verbatim in the Constitution, I've got some moon cheese I'd like to sell you. See below:

What is the History of the 4th Amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.

Today, the Fourth Amendment has lost its preferred status among our cherished Bill of Rights Protections. In recent decades, growing concerns regarding crime and public safety in America have forced our Courts to sacrifice the privacy rights contained in the Constitution with the ever-expanding demands of law-enforcement interest. The Supreme Court's rulings in Fourth Amendment cases demonstrate the challenge involved in reconciling these competing ideals.

Ultimately, the Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures has been stripped in recent years and tailored to suit the needs of modern law enforcement as we wage wars against drugs and terrorism. For this reason, it is important for conscientious citizens to be familiar with the lawful parameters of police authority to conduct searches, as well as the legal doctrines by which that authority is limited.

http://flexyourrights.org/faq

Edited July 30, 2010 by El Buscador

[Craneman 2]

US Citizens are protected by our beloved U.S. Constitution from having to carry papers with us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in order to prove to local law enforcement that we are here legally should they ever question our legal status. So when a draconian law such as SB1070 tries to circumvent our constitutional rights by giving authority to local law enforcement to ask for papers from anyone they suspect (including U.S. Citizens) and then detaining them without bail, indefinitely until USCIS clears the suspect, those who love the U.S. Constitution will stand up and challenge such draconian measures.

This is a victory for our beloved Constitution. All Americans should be proud that our civil rights prevailed.

Don't Borgart taht joint my friend, Pass it over to me!

Don furgit to corek the spelin.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Craneman

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

You skirted the point. There simply was nothing in there that rose anywhere near the level of "a disaster."

~ Tahoma

Your.avoidance.is.duly.noted.

"a disaster" isn't the only phrase you used - a major issue, it is.

By the way, your link, and the links in your link, did not give any evidence whatsoever that illegal aliens spreading communicable diseases is a "major issue" or is "yet another disaster."

[dluke77 9]

Think about that logic. Why would a law abiding citizen have to carry with them, identification at all times and be subject to imprisonment for not doing so? Do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned a free country like that?

As for where to find it in the Constitution - my friend, if you think every right of yours if spelled out verbatim in the Constitution, I've got some moon cheese I'd like to sell you. See below:

http://flexyourrights.org/faq

Actually, every civil liberty guaranteed to me as a US citizen is in the Constitution; and if something is not than it is guaranteed to the states and the people. And they did have papers back then--it was reference most likely to financial papers (for verification and duties to the King--relevant to their time) and later on to verify status of a slaves freedom, and in some cases "green card", yep they need probably cause or warrant to search your papers. Which isn't a bad thing.

Can you explain to me in a scholarly way - my friend. Why they can require a permit or license to carry a fire arm but they somehow can't require a National ID Card. Without bringing "search and seizure" into it because I understand the amendments meaning without probably cause or warrant.

As far as the web-link you utilized as a reference does acurately reflect the amandement; but the copy of the organizations take on the article itself is from a partisan non-profit group, the same group that called for repealing the law that prohibited giving government grants to people who were convicted drug offenders. Research your sources.

I have read and believe everything in the Constitution is relavant and can be applied in today's society. Would it be written differently if we had just claimed and won our independence from England? Well of course it would--its simplicity was reflective of the type of government the forfathers envisioned. I have read it numerous times, and everyone seems to have their own interpertation of it. I am lucky and grateful that I enjoy the rights it offers; and I try to value everyones opinion and that is why I volunteered to serve, and have been involved in three wars and various other incidents, specifically to ultimately protect the Constitution and those that spend countless hours of their lives trying interpet it and make sense of it, protecting those that want to twist it, change it, and protecting those that have never read it.

[TOM&Riz 4]

interesting

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Think about that logic. Why would a law abiding citizen have to carry with them, identification at all times and be subject to imprisonment for not doing so? Do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned a free country like that?

As for where to find it in the Constitution - my friend, if you think every right of yours if spelled out verbatim in the Constitution, I've got some moon cheese I'd like to sell you. See below:

http://flexyourrights.org/faq

That because Progressives want judges to pull "implied" rights out of the ether, while at the same time want to deny rights that are expressly written into the Constitution.

On the case of whether or not a search is "unreasonable", the courts have determined, correctly, that an individual search, may, or may not be reasonable. However, searches in general, applied without prejudice, are reasonable in most cases. For instance, a Game Warden may stop and search any vehicle to determine whether or not that vehicle has poached animals, (or eggs?). Or, vehicle checkpoints may check all, or even random vehicles, passing

through. TSA may search all passengers and baggage boarding a plane, etc.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That because Progressives want judges to pull "implied" rights out of the ether, while at the same time want to deny rights that are expressly written into the Constitution.

On the case of whether or not a search is "unreasonable", the courts have determined, correctly, that an individual search, may, or may not be reasonable. However, searches in general, applied without prejudice, are reasonable in most cases. For instance, a Game Warden may stop and search any vehicle to determine whether or not that vehicle has poached animals, (or eggs?). Or, vehicle checkpoints may check all, or even random vehicles, passing

through. TSA may search all passengers and baggage boarding a plane, etc.

Yes. Those dirty Progressives were behind the Dred Scott ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson, or even the recent ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

[evli1966 88]

The clueless will cry the loudest when they learn they been duped and fighting on the wrong side.

And the clueless believe they are the most educated and articulate among us.

I fear the day for them but I await it none the lless when the learn their error and realize the dream they thought conservative were taking from them was in deed given to the illegals they protect by the leaders they cling to hiding amidst distorted laws.

I have nothing to lie about I have stated I earned my way living as I thought a liberal minded person accepting of all until I saw the facts which the real liberals deny so they can feel good about themselves now.

I am uneducated as some point out due to my grammar and spelling skills yet I would wager it will be me and others with my mind set that will stand up in the end to help an immigrant survive with true assistance not adlib words and conjecture.

As some claim I use unscrupulous means to secure my future by buying real estate that others sought to buy in risky loans yet it will be me and others like me that will stand up and assist a person and their family survive in the future whether they are immigrants or citizens.

Yet it is me and others like me with the same mindset that want to secure the borders and rid ourselves of the illegal population draining the economy and believe it is laws like SB1070 that will force the federal on all sides of the poitical spectrum to take action and secure the borders and remove the illegals which do not belong here.

from now on i will sit and watch supporting and speaking up when it matters but it is up to you edumacated folks to learn what happens in real life and what it means to truly give of yourself or what it means when it is taken from you. I truly hope it is the first not the latter.

Me and Jo know what we must do as a citizen and as a new legal immigrant from another country.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes. Those dirty Progressives were behind the Dred Scott ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson, or even the recent ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Guess which side was your Progressive buddies were on for two of three of the decisions you cited? Just think, what would Woodrow Wilson do?

Edited July 31, 2010 by ##########

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Guess which side was your Progressive buddies were on for two of three of the decisions you cited? Just think, what would Woodrow Wilson do?

What history books were you reading? It was the industrious, northern states that were free states. They were the 'progressives' of that era. The ending of slavery was 'progressive', just as the the Endangered Species Act under Nixon was progressive. Progress is not defined by political ideology, but by the parameters of moving forward. As brilliant and forward thinking (progressive) as Thomas Jefferson was, he owned slaves. Andrew Jackson was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cherokee and other Native American tribes. BTW - what is your label for the mindset that is diametrically opposed to progress? Cavemanism?

Edited July 31, 2010 by El Buscador

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What history books were you reading? It was the industrious, northern states that were free states. They were the 'progressives' of that era. The ending of slavery was 'progressive', just as the the Endangered Species Act under Nixon was progressive. Progress is not defined by political ideology, but by the parameters of moving forward. As brilliant and forward thinking (progressive) as Thomas Jefferson was, he owned slaves. Andrew Jackson was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cherokee and other Native American tribes. BTW - what is your label for the mindset that is diametrically opposed to progress? Cavemanism?

I will give you a hint: The Republican party was the abolitionist party. Progressives like yourself like to reinvent history. Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Democrats, not Jefferson. The mascot of your party refers to Jackson. You really should read the history of your party, and of the Progressive movement.

[fil01 16]

"a disaster" isn't the only phrase you used - a major issue, it is.

i will have to agree with tahoma on this one because i read it and i didnt see where it said it was a major issue. maybe you can quote the part that says its a major issue or a disaster? thanks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I will give you a hint: The Republican party was the abolitionist party. Progressives like yourself like to reinvent history. Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Democrats, not Jefferson. The mascot of your party refers to Jackson. You really should read the history of your party, and of the Progressive movement.

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and a Republican. Your argument is getting sillier by the minute. Somewhere during history class, you were dozing off. This isn't about political parties but of mindsets and yes, Thomas Jefferson was by definition, progressive. He was heavily influenced and inspired by the Enlightenment. You've just got it stuck in your head that because you don't like some policies that have happened that were progressive, that must mean all progress is bad. Progress isn't a political movement, but a mindset, but feel free to cite a source that says otherwise.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

John Marshall Harlan - (born June 1, 1833, Boyle county, Ky., U.S. — died Oct. 14, 1911, Washington, D.C.) U.S. jurist. In the 1850s he was a lawyer and county judge in Boyle county, Ky. From 1861 to 1863 he commanded a Union regiment in the American Civil War. He served as state attorney general (1863 – 67) and ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for governor in 1871 and 1875. In 1877 he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes. During his tenure, which lasted to his death in 1911, he became one of the most forceful dissenters in the court's history and its outstanding liberal justice. His best-known dissenting opinions, such as those in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and the Civil Rights cases (1883), favoured the rights of blacks. He also issued famous dissents in favour of the federal income tax (1895) and opposing monopolies in cases arising under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. His grandson John Marshall Harlan (1899 – 1971) also served on the Supreme Court (1955 – 71).

http://www.answers.c...marshall-harlan

Edited July 31, 2010 by El Buscador

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and a Republican. Your argument is getting sillier by the minute. Somewhere during history class, you were dozing off. This isn't about political parties but of mindsets and yes, Thomas Jefferson was by definition, progressive. He was heavily influenced and inspired by the Enlightenment. You've just got it stuck in your head that because you don't like some policies that have happened that were progressive, that must mean all progress is bad. Progress isn't a political movement, but a mindset, but feel free to cite a source that says otherwise.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.answers.c...marshall-harlan

I give up on you, Steve. You are a lost cause.

Progressivism was the reform movement that ran from the late 19th century through the first decades of the 20th century, during which leading intellectuals and social reformers in the United States sought to address the economic, political, and cultural questions that had arisen in the context of the rapid changes brought with the Industrial Revolution and the growth of modern capitalism in America. The Progressives believed that these changes marked the end of the old order and required the creation of a new order appropriate for the new industrial age.

There are, of course, many different representations of Progressivism: the literature of Upton Sinclair, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, the history of Charles Beard, the educational system of John Dewey. In politics and political thought, the movement is associated with political leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and thinkers such as Herbert Croly and Charles Merriam.

While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. "All that progressives ask or desire," wrote Woodrow Wilson, "is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/07/The-Progressive-Movement-and-the-Transformation-of-American-Politics

Sound familiar?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Heritage Foundation? What's next, an historic synopsis from the John Birch Society?