No ruling in hearing over Arizona immigration law

[SMR 368]

Poor wording on my part. Reading, interpreting and understanding are not interchangeable in that one shouldn't assume that because one reads something, that they understand what they've read or have interpreted correctly. All communication is subject to interpretation, but with law, there is almost a futile attempt to minimize the different possibilities of interpretation. Even still, we have courts to interpret laws.

A poor choice of wording or simply a slip that revealed your true feelings on the subject? I suppose only you know.

You are obviously correct that different people interpret things different ways and that a person can read something without understanding it. That being said, reading should be a precursor to understanding and interpreting.

Moreover, I reject your implication that an educated, reasonable person can't read and understand laws without meddling from the political and legal elite. Many of the writers of the Constitution, including the president of the convention, Washington, had backgrounds other than political and legal. The Constitution, while written in educated language, is not an unnavigable swamp of legalese and obscure references. It's plain English for all to read.

While the power to interpret the Constitution is given to the courts, I believe that power is restricted to instances where reasonable and literal interpretations may differ. But when rights to healthcare, abortion, and gay marriage are "interpreted" when no such thing is even mentioned, or when the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization means that states are not allowed to ask for ID and require proof of legal presence from people on their territory, I will cry foul. That has left the reasonable definition of "interpret."

Moreover, the US Constitution is fundamentally a document which lays out what the federal government can and can't do. The fact that a certain power is given to Congress does not necessarily take that power from the states. Exceptions are explicitly laid out in article 1, section 10. No mention of immigration or naturalization is made. Thus, this power is retained by the states.

[Moonandstar 6]

Clearly, there must be absolutely no precedent of any abuse of power at all by law enforcement authorities in this country.

Hardly said that, rather, i was asking what made this law any more subject to abuse than other laws.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hardly said that, rather, i was asking what made this law any more subject to abuse than other laws.

A matter of perspective then. Perhaps its something specific to the way Arizona has behaved in its recent past? Spontaneous generation does not exist.

[justashooter 430]

Poor wording on my part. Reading, interpreting and understanding are not interchangeable in that one shouldn't assume that because one reads something, that they understand what they've read or have interpreted correctly. All communication is subject to interpretation, but with law, there is almost a futile attempt to minimize the different possibilities of interpretation. Even still, we have courts to interpret laws.

understanding legal statute is not that difficult. it really only gets complicated when the statute is revisory, and defines modification of existing law. in such cases you need to have the original statute to be able to plug in the changes being made to it.

as a quality manager i was responsible for interpreting international manufacturing code, and found it unweildy, at first. once i was familiar with the structure of the code it was all really very simple to decipher, even ASME, which drives people nuts from time to time. perhaps it is my basis in such application that makes interpretation of statute relatively easy for me.

where things get muddy is in the application of statute. administrative law provides actual procedural definitions and objectives for law enforcement, and is created at varying levels from fed on down. this is why it is so important to have impartial attourney generals at the federal and state level. the black panther scandal is a prime example of the damage a biased attourney general can do to the integrity of law enforcement. when obummer's atty general directed that no more cases be filed re voting rights violation in which black defendents are named, integrity of process went out the window.

[Moonandstar 6]

A matter of perspective then. Perhaps its something specific to the way Arizona has behaved in its recent past? Spontaneous generation does not exist.

Although i agree some Arizonians are quickly encroaching on some very xenophobic territory, to think that all Arizona POs are going to abuse this law is blowing this whole thing WAY out of proportion, especially when TWO of the lawsuits against the bill, are from AZ police officers themselves!

From the attorney defending Arizona in the recent hearings:

"In Arizona we have a tremendous Hispanic heritage. To think that everybody that's Hispanic is going to be stopped and questioned ... defies reality," Bouma said. "All this hypothetical that we're going to go out and arrest everybody that's Hispanic, look around. That's impossible."

[HAL 9000 96]

Although i agree some Arizonians are quickly encroaching on some very xenophobic territory, to think that all Arizona POs are going to abuse this law is blowing this whole thing WAY out of proportion, especially when TWO of the lawsuits against the bill, are from AZ police officers themselves!

From the attorney defending Arizona in the recent hearings:

"In Arizona we have a tremendous Hispanic heritage. To think that everybody that's Hispanic is going to be stopped and questioned ... defies reality," Bouma said. "All this hypothetical that we're going to go out and arrest everybody that's Hispanic, look around. That's impossible."

As you said... "Hardly said that"

While there is a need for immigration enforcement, duh, its not a local responsibility. LE officers involved in these lawsuits are likely concerned in the amount of time the obvious profiling will force them away from actual criminal offenses. Independently of how the law is worded that profiling will not be permitted, everyone with any knowledge of LE activity knows otherwise.

[Moonandstar 6]

As you said... "Hardly said that"

While there is a need for immigration enforcement, duh, its not a local responsibility. LE officers involved in these lawsuits are likely concerned in the amount of time the obvious profiling will force them away from actual criminal offenses. Independently of how the law is worded that profiling will not be permitted, everyone with any knowledge of LE activity knows otherwise.

Yea, that's the saddest part about that country.

And as YOU said, "Hardly said that".

I'd like to see a quote where the POs said that was their motivation for filing. Comon, lets get some facts in here for once.

[Pooky 3,876]

As you said... "Hardly said that"

While there is a need for immigration enforcement, duh, its not a local responsibility. LE officers involved in these lawsuits are likely concerned in the amount of time the obvious profiling will force them away from actual criminal offenses. Independently of how the law is worded that profiling will not be permitted, everyone with any knowledge of LE activity knows otherwise.

Therefore, by extension, you are saying that Federal law enforcement, who are supposed to be enforcing these laws, engage in racial profiling already, yet have received no high profile legal challenges.

Why is that?

[Moonandstar 6]

Btw, not sure what you aimed the words i used earlier at, but here are MY facts:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/judge-holds-hearing-on-arizona-immigration-lawsuit/19565170

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Have you bothered to read the Arizona law? I know that many liberals don't seem to like that question. It's embarrassing to have to admit you haven't read the text of a law while simultaneously being outraged about it.

Excuse me?!?!

I happen to be the most liberal person on this site and I agree with this law!

Don't spout your BS about this being a liberal vs. conservitive issue. Its not. Its all about money. Cheap labor and cutting costs.

[justashooter 430]

i should add that the 14th amendment is subject to standards of "due process" interpretation. laws affecting citizenship are usually held to "strict scrutiny" the laws affecting immigration are sometimes held to lower standards, even down to "compelling governmental interest". that is to say, if you're a citizen, you are "more equal" than an alien.

[Ban Hammer 14,293]

I happen to be the most liberal person on this site and I agree with this law!

no, you're not.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

no, you're not.

Perhaps... perhaps not...

I have yet to read a post that is as far left as I am...

[HAL 9000 96]

Yea, that's the saddest part about that country.

And as YOU said, "Hardly said that".

I'd like to see a quote where the POs said that was their motivation for filing. Comon, lets get some facts in here for once.

Don't I wish fact and context were an everyday thing here.

Therefore, by extension, you are saying that Federal law enforcement, who are supposed to be enforcing these laws, engage in racial profiling already, yet have received no high profile legal challenges.

Why is that?

Because Federal immigration enforcement does not stop people on the street as civilian LEOs would be forced to do under this law.

[Ban Hammer 14,293]

Perhaps... perhaps not...

I have yet to read a post that is as far left as I am...

and in this corner........steven. and in this corner, the challenger!