California should boycott its own laws

More reasons for real libertarians to despise CATO. He only seems to address whether it violated the supremacy clause, though, and he is wrong on that.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So now you're complaining; because it was CHANGED!! :palm:
Click to expand...

Uhh, no. The AZ law, as it is now, differs from the Ca law in very important ways. The Ca law does not try to create arrest authority for illegal presence and it's conditional upon an arrest, rather than just a stop or detention. I was just pointing out, that supporters either lied or were ignorant concerning what lawful contact would have allowed.

There is no doubt, that the amended version is significantly better than the original.
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
Well, if'n I recall correctly, the AZ law applies to any "lawful contact," meaning say the cops stop to assist a motorist with a flat tire. The California law applies only after a person is placed under arrest for committing a crime.

Additionally, the CA law simply says that officers have to cooperate with a non-existent federal agency whereas the AZ law says the cops can ship out anyone that fails to present proof of lawful presence in the US of A.
Click to expand...

Cite the passage, you idiot. I read the fucking law an d it doesn't say anythng like that. you get your info from a toilet
 
RStringfield said:
More reasons for real libertarians to despise CATO. He only seems to address whether it violated the supremacy clause, though, and he is wrong on that.
Click to expand...

Great legal argument...NOT!

I love the way you dealt with his reasoned position on how the law will hold up under Constititional challenge...and that DOJ memo; you just shot that argument all to hell...what a mindless drip you are!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
About Cato
The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.

Cato's 30th Anniversary

Cato's Mission
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.
 
RStringfield said:
Again, to pretend these two laws are the same is just ignorant. They are different in very important ways. The courts have already ruled that laws, such as California's, are Constitutional.

Once you arrest someone they no longer have any right to privacy. This is part of the reason Az came up with the collectivist/communist "trespass" bullshit. It's an attempt to establsih arrest powers. But they don't have any on illegal presence.
Click to expand...

????....are you implying that people have the right to violate the law in private?......
 
Threedee said:
Here in WA, cops aren't allowed to ask period, even if they make an arrest. Of course, we're pretty far away from the Mexican border.
Click to expand...

you just have to look out for those sneaky Cannuckistanis.... though they are far easier to spot... get them talking... if they say 'hey' at the end of each sentence you have bagged yourself a Cannuck (or someone from Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Dakota... and quite frankly... they should be deported too)
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, it says they have to turn them over to the feds.

Proof of lawful presense; all citizens should have 1 of the following.

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:


37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as a "Your papers please" sort of thing.
 
Ice Dancer said:
A person is pulled over for speeding or some traffic infraction: What's the first thing an officer asks for???

If a person is unable to provide identification...

yeah...uhhuh.
Click to expand...

Yep, a person pulled over for speeding must provide a valid driver's licence to show they can legally operate a vehicle.

But that is a far cry from "Proof of lawful presense; all citizens should have 1 of the following:".
 
Superfreak said:
you just have to look out for those sneaky Cannuckistanis.... though they are far easier to spot... get them talking... if they say 'hey' at the end of each sentence you have bagged yourself a Cannuck (or someone from Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Dakota... and quite frankly... they should be deported too)
Click to expand...

obviously you don't know any Cannucks.....they don't say "hey", they say "eh".......
 
WinterBorn said:
Yep, a person pulled over for speeding must provide a valid driver's licence to show they can legally operate a vehicle.

But that is a far cry from "Proof of lawful presense; all citizens should have 1 of the following:".
Click to expand...

Yep...that's where the AZ law comes into play...can't get one by you! Absent a legal drivers license (which illegal's usually don't have) an officer can now ask for proof of legal status...GAWD DAMN them for taking up the slack that Feds refuse to do! GAWD DAMN them for doing the job of aprehending illegal's and turning them over to the Feds...Those bastards :)
 
Ice Dancer said:
Yep...that's where the AZ law comes into play...can't get one by you! Absent a legal drivers license (which illegal's usually don't have) an officer can now ask for proof of legal status...GAWD DAMN them for taking up the slack that Feds refuse to do! GAWD DAMN them for doing the job of aprehending illegal's and turning them over to the Feds...Those bastards :)
Click to expand...

I am not condemning the AZ law for apprehending illegals.

I am referring to your comment that all US citizens need to carry ID to avoid arrest. I see that as a worse thing than having the flood of illegals that we do.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Great legal argument...NOT!

I love the way you dealt with his reasoned position on how the law will hold up under Constititional challenge...and that DOJ memo; you just shot that argument all to hell...what a mindless drip you are!
Click to expand...

He did not present a reasoned position. He did not address any of the arguments concerning why it violates the constitution. He just stated his position, that it doesn't. The only response to that is, he's wrong.
 
And please, you think I don't know what Cato is? I was a supporter until they proved, beyond doubt, that they were just a lapdog for the neocons by issuing arguments in support of the Iraq invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top