underpants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-24-10 10:06 PM
Original message |
Is there any way the Arizona law stands up in court? --(Arizona law post #483, for today) |
|
Edited on Sat Apr-24-10 10:08 PM by underpants
I'm not a lawyer so that is why I ask.
Illegal search and seizure alone throws it out from what I understand. Equal protection and Profiling laws too.
|
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-24-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message |
NoNothing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-24-10 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
But the Supreme Court has previously ruled that police CAN require a person to identify themselves if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. So technically the law is probably constitutional.
|
csziggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-24-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. It can take years for cases to reach the Supreme Court. |
|
Maybe by the time cases bringing this issue up does get there, the court will have moved more to the left.
But it is depressing to think this kind of law would be in effect that long.
|
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-25-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. As these fucktards are all young, no rush. |
|
The repugnants appoint youngsters to the court so that they will be there for a very long time.
|
csziggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-25-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. I know, it will be a long time before the Supreme Court is cleansed of the taint |
|
Of Reagan-Bush appointees.
Every so often I think about the premise of The Pelican Brief, but I know our side should not use those tactics.
|
aikoaiko
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-25-10 12:10 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Its the suspicion of being an unlawful alien that seems the most sketchy |
|
I would think that the "suspicion" needs to be defined beyond race, language, and general appearance for it not to be discriminatory.
What would the probable cause be?
I support border control, enforcement of lawful immigration, and prosecuting businesses that knowingly hire noneligible employees, but this law is wreck waiting to happen.
|
demwing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-25-10 12:22 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Isn't it a jurisdictional issue - State vs Fed? |
|
Edited on Sun Apr-25-10 12:29 AM by demwing
Where a state can require proof of identification, can a state require proof of citizenship? Some issues- like national security - are under the sole responsibility of the Feds. Seems Arizona has over-stepped their authority.
|
Bitwit1234
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-25-10 09:32 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Of course...It violates a person's civil rights by discriminating |
|
against them. And that is against federal law. State law in no way overrides federal law. Check it out.
|
madokie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-25-10 09:33 AM
Response to Original message |
7. after 2000 anything is possible with this court |
|
Is the law unlawful, yes of course it is
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 02:20 AM
Response to Original message |