The Cellar - What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22610)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667334)

And any chance you could note the edits/changes in arguments you make to your posts after the fact?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667336)

The reason I went off on the USSC precedence tangent was because you said, unlike the drug laws, immigration law has only ever been entirely a Fed issue (paraphrased, I'd quote it if it was still there). Now it doesn't make sense...
And now you're saying courts made it a Fed issue later.

Been there done that. Enjoy. :nuke:

If you quote the post you are responding to, it doesn't change in your quote, when the original post is edited later.

No , but it does clog up the board to quote every post every time.

Yes it does, but for some people it's necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 667313)

The Supreme Court ruled the state law was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration.

The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.

Another perspective from former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, hardly a raging liberal.

Although she wisely does not go into details (given that it would be poor form for a former justice to make a legal judgment in the media), her concern is the potential for profiling

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...122620592.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 667340)

If you quote the post you are responding to, it doesn't change in your quote, when the original post is edited later.

Ya... too late. Guess I'll have to remember that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667344)

The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.

And as I noted, those cases were before the federal government asserted its express power to regulate immigration.

And, again, we aint the experts and we have a difference of opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667352)

And still no links.

I would encourage you to start by reading the constitutinal law profs blog:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/con...reemption.html

And, I would encourage Classicman to either join the discussion fully or stay out of it.

I don't want to read a blog, I would like a link to the USSC case you claim supports your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 667354)

I don't want to read a blog, I would like a link to the USSC case you claim supports your argument.

The cases I was referring to are around the supremacy clause...going back as far as John Marshall and the first Court regarding the Constitution's expressed powers reserved for Congress and the fact that the states cannot interfere in that process.

To better understand one perspective on the supremacy clause, read the blog.

Ok, but,

Quote:

The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.

Those cases were BEFORE Congress assumed its expressed powers to regulate/legislate immigration.

And as a result, IMO those cases are not likely to be cited, but I could very well be wrong.

The principles behind the supremacy clause have stood the test of time, but I could be wrong in the case as well.

Under the 4th Amendment exceptions to detainment can be made...

Quote:

Exceptions
The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions.

Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless checkpoints for driver's licenses and registration. In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.[29]

Another exception is at borders and ports of entry.

Roadblocks may be used to capture a particular fleeing criminal or locate a bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution

And here the courts found that stopping people who look like they are of Mexican ancestory is legal:

Quote:

We further believe that it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to the secondary inspection area at the San Clemente checkpoint on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving-patrol stop. Thus, even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, 16 we perceive no constitutional violation. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S., at 885 -887. As the intrusion here is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it, we think it follows that the Border Patrol [428 U.S. 543, 564] officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved. 17

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=428&invol=543