OK, I gotta weigh in. At first blush, it seems incredible the President, the Attorney General, and the Homeland Security Director have or had not "read the Arizona law" You know the one. The one which says that local state law enforcement can enforce a state law which makes it a crime to be an illegal alien in the State of Arizona.
Now, do any of you really believe the above high ranking federal officials had not read the Arizona law when asked if they had?. Of course not. They read it. They, in a calculated stance said they had not. Now why would they do that?. Well, it seems to me the clear and unambiguous reading of the law makes several factors clear as day. First, cops cannot ask a person about their status on the basis of race. Second, cops cannot ask about their status unless there is at least a constitutional basis for the persons detention concerning a possible violation of an unrelated law. By constitutional basis I mean at least "reasonable suspicion" the person has or is about to violate a law. Period. A suspected illegal alien cannot be detained solely to inquire about their status in this country. There has to be another legal basis for the detention or arrest. In fact, a careful reading of the Arizona law makes it clear the law enforcement contact cannot even begin as consensual to then ask about their legal status in the country.
So, back to why all these federal officials say they have not read the law. Well, it seems clear to me that had they admitted to having read Arizona's law would place them in a position to defend their broad and sweeping statements the law encourages profiling. So why say they haven't read it?. It is because they cannot defend their position in logic. They cannot win a debate on the issue. They will be forced to admit the law does not do any of the evil crap they say it does.
The main stream media is no better, and they will not ask these officials why, in the face of the clear language of the statute they say what they have said. Instead, it has become a lie told often enough, may Americans believe it. Don't you believe for a second they didn't read the statute. They have, they just cannot defend their position if they admit they know what the law says.
Now, is it constitutional?. Well, it should be. It does not violate any federal statute. In fact, it mirrors the federal statute at issue. And, the Supreme Court long ago found it constitutional for a state to pass immigration laws. What will happen is any ones guess. The supremacy clause is not the real issue and the feds know it. We won't know how it will end until the Supreme Court rules and the local federal trial and appeals court decisions mean little on the way up.
The bottom line is any lawyer, hell any non lawyer, can read the Arizona alien statute and come away with the same conclusion. It does not allow a detention unless there is a lawful independent reason for a detention. Read it yourself..... just don't say you haven't to avoid a debate in the issue...like many of our "leaders" have done.
Friday, July 16, 2010
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, by God
McDonald v. Chicago. In deed, it is hundreds of pages long. And, it represents the very first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ever directly ruled on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
If you have looked at some of my prior posts, you will notice I talked about how the Bill of Rights and its various provisions, affect the individual states. The short version is that after some decades of battles, the court decided only those Amendments which are "implicit in the concept or ordered liberty" apply to the states. Never before McDonald has the court directly addressed this issue. But a few weeks ago it did. The court held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. The states may still regulate firearms as long as their laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
McDonald, while historic in nature, is somewhat limited. It concerns the right to be armed in your home without a local law telling you it is illegal. As far as it goes, it strikes down state and local laws that directly or indirectly outlaw a person from having a handgun in their home. That is all it says. It does not say states and local governments cannot pass regulations as to the carrying of a gun, the type of ammo you put in it, etc. In fact, the city of Chicago reacted to McDonald by immediately passing a law that says you have to have a friggin' permit from them to step out out in your own yard with your gun! The NRA immediately filed a lawsuit.
It will be interesting to watch. I predict a lot of litigation yet to come. The funny thing is, the states and locals may loose. You see, government can infringe on a basic or fundamental right if they can show a compelling reason. Hell, I don't think they can even show a rational basis for the laws. The facts are clear. Where gun ownership and carry is restricted, crime goes up. When people are relatively unrestricted in the carrying of weapons, violent crime goes down.
One by one, the state and local gun laws will fall. It may take a decade, but it will happen. So, it looks like McDonald v Chicago will be viewed as a landmark gun rights case, and maybe the most important decision in this area in a century. Lock and Load!
If you have looked at some of my prior posts, you will notice I talked about how the Bill of Rights and its various provisions, affect the individual states. The short version is that after some decades of battles, the court decided only those Amendments which are "implicit in the concept or ordered liberty" apply to the states. Never before McDonald has the court directly addressed this issue. But a few weeks ago it did. The court held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. The states may still regulate firearms as long as their laws do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
McDonald, while historic in nature, is somewhat limited. It concerns the right to be armed in your home without a local law telling you it is illegal. As far as it goes, it strikes down state and local laws that directly or indirectly outlaw a person from having a handgun in their home. That is all it says. It does not say states and local governments cannot pass regulations as to the carrying of a gun, the type of ammo you put in it, etc. In fact, the city of Chicago reacted to McDonald by immediately passing a law that says you have to have a friggin' permit from them to step out out in your own yard with your gun! The NRA immediately filed a lawsuit.
It will be interesting to watch. I predict a lot of litigation yet to come. The funny thing is, the states and locals may loose. You see, government can infringe on a basic or fundamental right if they can show a compelling reason. Hell, I don't think they can even show a rational basis for the laws. The facts are clear. Where gun ownership and carry is restricted, crime goes up. When people are relatively unrestricted in the carrying of weapons, violent crime goes down.
One by one, the state and local gun laws will fall. It may take a decade, but it will happen. So, it looks like McDonald v Chicago will be viewed as a landmark gun rights case, and maybe the most important decision in this area in a century. Lock and Load!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)