"Reasonable suspision"
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
THIS.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Seriously, Jarod? You name-call, and then you accuse Dixie of name-calling you? LOLZ
I think your premises are flawed. Conservatives understand, rather than hate, the Constitution... and you're retarded.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Simple words and phrases. That could narrow it down significantly.
bob
a member named bob
when they were pointing guns at me and saying put you hands out the window...ect,ect... although they did end up asking me for it. ut that was a time ago
And I posted the law. She is required to carry her card.
Uhhh, where did I name call?
Incorrect. that Act actually describes those who are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants do not register and are never issued such documents. In fact, it is directly referred to in the Arizona law. You are flat either unconscious or just ignorant. Stop talking about stuff you know nothing about.
Yup, and it appears its a law that is not enforced, like laws against anal sex or other types of sodamy.
Not like those, the immigration laws are not enforced because the Administrations do not want to enforce them. Replicating the law and directly referencing it in the Arizona law is not unconstitutional.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
I agree with you on the point that that part of the law is not unconstitutional, at least considering a 14th Amendment analysis.
Not all of them...
And there are plenty of other laws that are not enforced simply on policy grounds.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
ever hear of the case lawrence v. texas....i suggest you read it and learn something...
i'll send you my bill for this private tutor session
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
YES, smelling booze on your breath, while driving, is "reasonable suspicion" for any officer to have probable cause to believe that you might be intoxicated while driving. This does not mean that you are GUILTY of the violation, the officer does not have to prove your guilt!
No speaking English AND not having any form of identification, in a state that borders with Mexico, is "reasonable suspicion" for an officer to have "probable cause" that you MIGHT not be here legally. Again, he does not have to PROVE you are GUILTY!
For the record, no one as stupid and uneducated as you can become a lawyer. I don't believe this for one second. You are probably not even a high school graduate, much less a fucking lawyer. Stop lying to people!
Paragraph 1 - Try taking that into a Florida Court and argueing that, you would LOOSE.
Paragraph 2 - NOT.
Paragraph 3 - I dont care what you belive.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
is your nanny a citizen? or just on a green card?
Conservative
Repent, America!
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and California Congressman Jack Kimble have announced that they are considering a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all children born in the United States.
The problem is that these babies are often born to illegal immigrants serving as an anchor to allow the family to become legal immigrants themselves. The 14th amendment which allows birthright citizen was passed during the second half of the 19th century at a time when there was not much immigration in the United States. Now that our borders are practically exploding with immigrants, it’s time to stop this antiquated practice.
“I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here,” Graham said during an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake … We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen.”
Asked how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: “I got to.”
“Talking with Senator Graham has convinced me that a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go,” responded Senator Kimble, “I think we need to go in that direction, but the process is rather slow moving and we need to take emergency action now.”
When asked what those emergency actions should be, Kimble responded, “Abortion is not an answer and as a Catholic I don’t believe in artificial contraception either. The only way to make sure that immigrants do not have children in this country as 3/4 of the states vote on the convention is to not allow sexually active women or women who have had sex within the past 9 months into the country.”
Kimble went on to say, “I am perfectly willing to accept the honor system. I do not think we have to only allow women who are virgins or past child bearing age into the country, but that is certainly one way we could go.”
“I’m a practical guy, but when you go forward, I don’t want 20 million more 20 years from now,” said Graham. “I want to be fair. I want to be humane. We need immigration policy, but it should be on our terms, not someone else’s. I don’t know how to fix it all. But I do know what makes people mad, that 12 million people came here, and there seems to be no system to deal with stopping 20 million 20 years from now.”
“Immigration is a threat that previous generations of Americans didn’t have to worry about. I believe in following the original intent of the Constitution, but I don’t think we can always support the Constitution when it stands in the way of our freedom,” concluded Kimble.
thatsrightnate.com/2010/07/29/senator-graham-and-congressman-kimble-call-for-repeal-of-14th-amendment
The problem is that these babies are often born to illegal immigrants serving as an anchor to allow the family to become legal immigrants themselves. The 14th amendment which allows birthright citizen was passed during the second half of the 19th century at a time when there was not much immigration in the United States. Now that our borders are practically exploding with immigrants, it’s time to stop this antiquated practice.
“I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here,” Graham said during an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake … We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen.”
Asked how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: “I got to.”
“Talking with Senator Graham has convinced me that a Constitutional Amendment is the way to go,” responded Senator Kimble, “I think we need to go in that direction, but the process is rather slow moving and we need to take emergency action now.”
When asked what those emergency actions should be, Kimble responded, “Abortion is not an answer and as a Catholic I don’t believe in artificial contraception either. The only way to make sure that immigrants do not have children in this country as 3/4 of the states vote on the convention is to not allow sexually active women or women who have had sex within the past 9 months into the country.”
Kimble went on to say, “I am perfectly willing to accept the honor system. I do not think we have to only allow women who are virgins or past child bearing age into the country, but that is certainly one way we could go.”
“I’m a practical guy, but when you go forward, I don’t want 20 million more 20 years from now,” said Graham. “I want to be fair. I want to be humane. We need immigration policy, but it should be on our terms, not someone else’s. I don’t know how to fix it all. But I do know what makes people mad, that 12 million people came here, and there seems to be no system to deal with stopping 20 million 20 years from now.”
“Immigration is a threat that previous generations of Americans didn’t have to worry about. I believe in following the original intent of the Constitution, but I don’t think we can always support the Constitution when it stands in the way of our freedom,” concluded Kimble.
thatsrightnate.com/2010/07/29/senator-graham-and-congressman-kimble-call-for-repeal-of-14th-amendment
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here is your problem Jarhead... You are attempting to apply standards of jurisprudence to police officers in the field, and these are two completely separate things, with completely differing sets of criteria. A cop is not required to prove you are guilty or innocent of violating the law, that is what courts and judges do. A cop is merely responsible for making a reasonable determination that you broke a law. In order to do this, one of their tools is "reasonable suspicion" and another is "probable cause." As long as they reasonably suspect a violation of the law has occurred, they can act with "probable cause." They are not required to PROVE you are guilty of a crime before acting. It is not only absurd to make such an argument, but patently ignorant. Anyone with ANY level of knowledge and understanding of how laws work, and the role of law enforcement, should understand this... you obviously don't.
Now, you talk a pretty good talk here, and I suspect you've probably watched a lot of Mattlock or Perry Mason, maybe some Law & Order, but you don't have the literacy skills to be a lawyer, and you certainly lack a basic understanding of how laws are enforced. I believe you are a Lawyer like I am the CEO of Microsoft!