Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: General Stuff
Topic: Arizona new law
started by: unkbill

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 04 2010,13:31

I got this from my uncle. I went to snopes and truthorfiction.com to see if it was true. Never the less it does mirror the way I feel about it. I mean besides the political finger shaking they are doing bad vote them out shit.

This was written by a Mexican who is now a naturalized US Citizen, and I think it's a great explanation of the illegal immigration issue.
Here is the quote:
"If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or for an airline flight, and when you got to your assigned seat you found someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would properly be asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat.
The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, which they would not be able to produce. They would be called "gate crashers" and they would properly be removed.
Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!
In "section AZ", of "Stadium USA", we have had enough of the failures of Security.
We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 "sections", and even many in our own "section" do not want tickets checked, or even to be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.
My own ticket has been bought and paid for, so I am proudly going to show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it, such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would do proudly, then you must be condoning those illegal activities."
Written by a US Citizen, Globe, Arizona.
This makes perfect sense to me. What do you think?

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 04 2010,14:14

QUOTE

The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing

Then you have an exceptionally poor imagination.

I don't want to live in a world where one must show proof of ones right to exist upon demand to a government official. The government is meant to serve the people, not the other way around.

If you like that sort of thing, move to communist East Germany. Oh, nevermind, you can't because it doesn't exist anymore. That's still no reason to recreate it here.

Stinkin' Commies.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 04 2010,15:03

Even if a cop accuses me at random of having a dead hooker in my trunk, I probably wouldn't consent to a search, even to prove him wrong. Until his ass proves he's got reason enough to look, I'd refuse just to be contrary.

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 06 2010,06:16

(TPRJones @ Jun. 04 2010,14:14)

QUOTE

The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing

If things worked right there would be no need to ask for ID. The boarder should be closed with the only people here being legal.
I don't know why people are so thin skinned about being asked for identification. Do people bitch when they get pulled over for speeding. I'm thinking there are allot more of my rights being trampled on by illegal aliens being here.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 06 2010,10:28

QUOTE

I don't know why people are so thin skinned about being asked for identification. Do people bitch when they get pulled over for speeding.

When people ask for your ID, it's implying your identity is contained on some little plastic card that can be produced on demand so you're able to justify your existence to whatever holder-than-thou authority figures happens to be around. It implies you're only what your card says you are. The law is essentially putting the onus on me to make their jobs easier. If the legal system in this country weren't a joke on wheels, I'd be singing a different tune.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 06 2010,14:03

(unkbill @ Jun. 06 2010,08:16)

QUOTE

I don't know why people are so thin skinned about being asked for identification.

Commies never do understand why that's a problem, no.

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 06 2010,15:19

(TPRJones @ Jun. 06 2010,14:03)

QUOTE

(unkbill @ Jun. 06 2010,08:16)

QUOTE

I don't know why people are so thin skinned about being asked for identification.

Commies never do understand why that's a problem, no.

Guess I am a commie. Are you expecting every cop on the planet to know who you are when they see you. He looks normal so he must be. My wife has been profiled at the airport. Lets check her bags for explosive residue. She is of color. Made me feel better about her flying and I would hope make the other passengers feel better. Do I think they do a good enough job? No.
Now I here the terrorist are having women carry bombs. It is of little intrusion to my life to make myself feel better.
If this were a perfect world I wouldn't have to worry.
Wish this gov. would shut down our boarders would make me sleep better.
Will bet only one on here I can go to Canada or Mexico illegally. That does not make me feel safe. Sometimes we have to give up freedoms to feel safe. But in a perfect world I wouldn't have to. Isn't a perfect world what the communist wanted. I don't want a perfect world. I know that is not possible. How about a better government guarding my boarders making me feel safer?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 06 2010,16:10

(unkbill @ Jun. 06 2010,18:19)

QUOTE

My wife has been profiled at the airport. Lets check her bags for explosive residue.

I've had my shit wiped down by TSA 4 times checking for explosive residue, and once the cunt was even making threats at me under her breath as she did it, talking about how they would fuck me up if they found something on me. Granted, that was in Detroit.

I must look like a terrorist.

Fuck the TSA and the government.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 07 2010,06:14

(unkbill @ Jun. 06 2010,17:19)

QUOTE

Are you expecting every cop on the planet to know who you are when they see you.

No. That's the whole point. If I am not in some obvious way breaking the law then my identity is none of any cop's damn business.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 07 2010,06:41

Except... sometimes you are breaking the law because of your identity if you are in the country illegally.

At any rate, the Arizona Law doesn't allow for random "papers, please"-type checks, the way it is being advertised in the MSM. None of them read the law before having an opinion about it; they just swallowed what was fed to them by their masters.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 07 2010,08:01

(GORDON @ Jun. 07 2010,08:41)

QUOTE

At any rate, the Arizona Law doesn't allow for random "papers, please"-type checks...

Because cops just can't detain you for random shit that can make up.

"You know why I pulled you over? One of your tail lights started blinking right before you made that turn back there. Might be broken."

Granted, you're only subject to the check if the cop gets you for something else, but honestly, how hard is that to make up?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 07 2010,10:25

I wouldn't say it is hard at all, but then that is nothing new. Why get all in an uproar over that practice now? Oh yeah, because there is a political agenda to push.

Posted by Troy on Jun. 07 2010,10:43

(GORDON @ Jun. 07 2010,10:25)

QUOTE

I wouldn't say it is hard at all, but then that is nothing new. Why get all in an uproar over that practice now? Oh yeah, because there is a political agenda to push.

I could say the same to about half the Tea party platform.

Controversy just comes in cycles.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 07 2010,11:12

Fine. Start practicing fiscal responsibility and adherence to the constitution in government to pander to the tea partiers, then in compromise you can stop checking people for legal citizenship to pander to the left.

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 07 2010,17:15

(GORDON @ Jun. 07 2010,11:12)

QUOTE

HAHAHAHAHA he said fiscal responsibility. I said it before and not for the last time. I believe the slogan. It is time for change. Maybe not by Pres. Bama. But time for change. And to give him credit he did come up with the slogan that got picked up.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 07 2010,17:37

That's one of the primary tea party messages. Fiscal responsibility.

Which, or course, makes them racist.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 14 2010,11:55

More from Arizona:

< New law coming. >

That one is going to get beat in court. I like where their head is at in trying to close a loophole, but the Constitution won't be overruled. Although, one would have to ask why the Democratically controlled Congress is allowed to ignore the Constitution when passing health care, yet this law will be stopped due to the Constitution.

< Workplace raid. >

Ok, they were there for something else AND illegals, but I think the Sizzler highlights what could truly be done to stop illegal immigration: harsher punishments for companies that hire them.9And cut off the free social services, of course.)

< Arizona's tactics are working. >

Despite the attempts to spin it to make Arizona look stupid or evil, there's a lot of good information in that article showing they are on the right track.

For example:

QUOTE

Nearly 100,000 illegal immigrants left Arizona after it passed a 2007 law that penalized businesses that hired them

I like how the article also shows that the illegals seem to simply be moving on to other states in greater numbers than those returning home. That's more proof that Arizona is not only right, but that the last state to adopt similar laws will be left holding the check.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 14 2010,13:52

(Leisher @ Jun. 14 2010,13:55)

QUOTE

< New law coming. > That one is going to get beat in court...

Absolutely, it's completely unconstitutional.

However, there's nothing in the 14th Amendment that says the parents get to stay. Option 1) kid can stay and be put into foster care while the parents are sent back never to see the kid again, or 2) all are kicked out but the kid does have citizenship and can return when he or she grows up.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 14 2010,14:01

QUOTE

Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.

That's "reasonable suspicion?" Wow. Bar's set pretty goddamned low. If "poor English skills" warrants an immigration check, then most native speakers would be subject to it.

QUOTE

For his part, Gutierrez is skeptical of claims that the law will begin an exodus. “I don’t see a historical trend that has been in place for 100 years will be reversed because you’ve got a few hyper-conservative white legislators trying to turn back the clock, turn back the tides of history.”
...
“Latinos...are a highly flexible, highly exploitable work force, a buffer to economic downturns,” he says. “Many of the industries here – agriculture, service industries, low-end manufacturing, construction – are massively dependent on undocumented workers.

That was mainly the attitude of many Southern slavery apologists towards their workers. Interesting how he's concerned about them as people in the paragraph before & talks about them like an abstract economic commodity in the next.

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 21 2010,07:10

Bout says it all.
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE >

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 21 2010,10:13

A few tidbits from a friend who works the border for our government:
-Seattle passed a resolution like LA condemning the Arizona law and the same day there were 2 rapes and a murder committed in Seattle. All three were unrelated crimes, and all three were committed by illegal aliens.
-Two Arizona police officers went public to challenge the law. They expressed that it was racist, and all the other leftist talking points. As it turns out, both have family here in the U.S. illegally and this law would require them to turn those family members in or be accomplices, face jail time, and lose their jobs.

Also, according to < this sheriff, Mexican drug cartels control parts of Arizona. >

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 22 2010,05:38

< Fremont, Nebraska joins the fight against illegals. >

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 22 2010,07:19

Here's an interesting dilemma for "morally superior" LA:
What wins? < Revenue or Boycott? >

This is their chance to put their money where their mouth is and really prove to their constituents how serious they are about opposing the Arizona law.

Is there anyone on the planet who thinks LA won't renew these contracts to get that revenue?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2010,07:31

I think politicians have always talked out both sides of their faces, and always will.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 22 2010,07:49

< Same thing in Nebraska >. Talk of passing the "boot illegals" law.

Oddly enough, there's a few quotes that struck me in there, two pro, one con.

QUOTE

Clint Walraven, who has lived in Fremont all his 51 years, said the jobs should go to legal residents who are unemployed — something he believes the ordinance would help fix. Discussions on the issue can get heated, he said, particularly if racism is mentioned.

"It has nothing to do with being racist," he said. "We all have to play by the same rules. ... If you want to stay here, get legal."

Emphasis mine. So there's the ideological argument.

QUOTE

Walraven said the measure is necessary because workers send their salaries to family in Mexico instead of spending it in the city.

"I understand supporting your family," he said, "But it's very much at our expense. We're footing the bill."

Slam dunk. You can't take cash out of a place without putting some back in & expect things to be ok. There's the practical argument.

QUOTE

Sandra Leffler, 69, who owns a downtown antique store with her husband, Marv, said she knows not all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, but that it's hard not to think that way.

Really? It's hard? Why? Every time I see a dude with a turban, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I wonder if he has a bomb under there."

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 22 2010,07:55

Were I in a position of power in that Arizona company, I'd actually considering refusing to sell shit to them. Fuck L.A. Needs to fall into the damn ocean.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2010,08:04

(Malcolm @ Jun. 22 2010,10:49)

QUOTE

Sandra Leffler, 69, who owns a downtown antique store with her husband, Marv, said she knows not all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, but that it's hard not to think that way.

Really? It's hard? Why? Every time I see a dude with a turban, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I wonder if he has a bomb under there."

I think, "I wonder if he is one of the 10%."

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 22 2010,08:49

(GORDON @ Jun. 22 2010,08:04)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Jun. 22 2010,10:49)

QUOTE

Sandra Leffler, 69, who owns a downtown antique store with her husband, Marv, said she knows not all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, but that it's hard not to think that way.

Really? It's hard? Why? Every time I see a dude with a turban, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I wonder if he has a bomb under there."

I think, "I wonder if he is one of the 10%."

When we were in California I thought something like that all the time when working. Wonder if that gentleman of Spanish decent is paying for that with my tax money?
Guess that makes me an asshole. Not giving everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 22 2010,10:25

I bet that within the next couple of years, there will be stories about Mexican terrorists, and something will blow up, and then the Homeland Security guys will have plenty of money to secure our southern border. Expect the rights of US citizens to be further degraded in the process.

If that goes really well, the next problem will be Canadian terrorists in about 2020.

Posted by Troy on Jun. 22 2010,11:27

(TPRJones @ Jun. 22 2010,10:25)

QUOTE

There is already a shit load of things blowing up.

It's all just blamed on drug violence.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 22 2010,11:39

(Troy @ Jun. 22 2010,13:27)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Jun. 22 2010,10:25)

QUOTE

There is already a shit load of things blowing up.

It's all just blamed on drug violence.

Troy's got a point. If the U.S. felt like really clamping down on that, they've got an excuse already. Hell, the law enforcement folk down there have damn near replaced their badges with price tags. & given how D.C. wants everyone to believe that drugs are polluting or raping our children's futures or whatever, you'd think they'd care more. They already dump billions into that worthless endeavour. Why not just step up the force to overt seek-and-destroy ops in Mexico?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2010,12:02

Neither party wants to be the one that alienates the hispanic vote.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 22 2010,12:20

(Malcolm @ Jun. 22 2010,13:39)

QUOTE

(Troy @ Jun. 22 2010,13:27)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Jun. 22 2010,10:25)

QUOTE

There is already a shit load of things blowing up.

It's all just blamed on drug violence.

Perhaps. The difference is that everyone knows the war on drugs is bullshit. Not everyone knows the war on terror is bullshit. PR-wise the later would be a better seller in the current media market.

But you're probably right that they won't do it since they could have already and haven't.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 22 2010,12:51

QUOTE

The difference is that everyone knows the war on drugs is bullshit. Not everyone knows the war on terror is bullshit.

< From here >

QUOTE

Based upon state and federal data for fiscal year 2009, every second that the page is open the Drug War Cost Clock registers another $1,673.45 that is spent by our government each and every second of every day

1s = $1673.45
365 days * 24 hrs/day * 60 min/hr * 60 s/min = $52,773,919,200 per year

From wikipedia for the 2008 budget for the U.S. "war on terror"...

QUOTE

$145.2 billion

Hmm. You appear to be right. Then again, we're just one cartel-sponsored hijacked plane away from seeing that $52 billion get jacked up. & the drug lords have no interest in seeing that.

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 22 2010,16:44

I really just don't get it. Entering a country without permission in most of the world will get you shot as a spy. To me it is just a matter of law. It is against the law to walk over the boarder without papers. It is against the law to bring in drugs. When did it became o.k. to break the law?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2010,17:46

(unkbill @ Jun. 22 2010,19:44)

QUOTE

When the people doing it vote democrat.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 23 2010,04:13

(unkbill @ Jun. 22 2010,18:44)

QUOTE

When we started getting more and more stupid laws on the books so that literally every citizen is a criminal to one degree or another. When that happens respect for the law plummets, as it should.

when the government demonstrates that the primary purpose of laws is to shake down the people for revenue, this is the sort of response you can expect.

Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 25 2010,05:52

< Bwahahahaha >.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 25 2010,05:56

what a stupid asshole.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 25 2010,07:13

< Obama's "Plan B" for illegal amnesty. >

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 25 2010,09:02

So he is torpedoing the Arizona law by making the illegals legal.

Gotta get those votes!

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 25 2010,16:37

(thibodeaux @ Jun. 25 2010,05:52)

QUOTE

< Bwahahahaha >.

I wish you had never posted that. It makes me loose more faith in the country and makes me feel better about maybe cutting my wrist. WTF are they thinking?

Posted by unkbill on Jun. 25 2010,16:43

(Leisher @ Jun. 25 2010,07:13)

QUOTE

< Obama's "Plan B" for illegal amnesty. >

This would be my plan B. Kick all the illegal asses back a crossed the boarder. Anyone crossing the boarder is shot on sight with a big Sign that says. Welcome To America As long as you are Legal. This country was born by immigrants. Well after we killed all the Indians off.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2010,11:23

< From here >.

QUOTE

Mr. Obama Thursday called the Arizona law "ill-conceived" and said it had the potential to violate the rights of lawful citizens by allowing law enforcement to stop people based on what they look like.

So, how about all those anti-gang laws that make it a crime for folk wearing particular colors/clothing to gather publicly in groups of two or more? Just keep picking & choosing.

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 06 2010,22:02

< Justice Department sues Arizona. >

The feds can't (won't) enforce the border and their own laws against illegal immigrants. In response, and after constant requests to the government that they please step up enforcement, Arizona passes a law that is a mirror of the federal law, but allows local law enforcement to help the feds. In response, the feds sue Arizona...

For what exactly?

Read the article, it's an embarrassment for the justice department. No way is this something they ever would have done on their own. This is Obama and his left wing cronies trying to win favor with Hispanic voters, including illegals that they're hoping they can make legal before they lose power in November.

IF it was ever proven that the ultimate goal was indeed to win votes, particularly with illegals that they plan to make legal, could Obama and his lot be charged with treason? I'm just curious. Everyone KNOWS that's what they're doing, but at what point does it become criminal?

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 07 2010,09:11

(Leisher @ Jul. 07 2010,00:02)

QUOTE

IF it was ever proven that the ultimate goal was indeed to win votes, particularly with illegals that they plan to make legal, could Obama and his lot be charged with treason? I'm just curious. Everyone KNOWS that's what they're doing, but at what point does it become criminal?

QUOTE

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

What foreign nation is B. Rock helping?

You'd have a hell of a time proving they're doing all of this explicitly for the votes. Even if you had that proof, all they're doing is conspiring to legalize otherwise illegal aliens, through some type of due process of law. He's essentially offering amnesty plus citizenship, which isn't an unheard of thing in history. It's just that usually the gov't offering such status asks for something in return as opposed to giving it away.

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 07 2010,11:22

QUOTE

What foreign nation is B. Rock helping?

A good question. Why does treason have to involve helping a foreign nation? Can't treason also be the intentional destruction, weakening, etc. of the country even if it isn't to aid a specific foreign power?

The point is if he is sacrificing the U.S. as it currently stands and was intended to stand, so that a bunch of socialists can change the government to their system...could that be treason? Or will he be judged as simply "doing the will of the people" because enough morons will vote for him and his elitist left wing assholes?

QUOTE

You'd have a hell of a time proving they're doing all of this explicitly for the votes.

Remember the old chick who sued McDonald's because she spilled their coffee in her lap while driving? Know why she won? Her lawyers tracked down an internal memo between McDonald's executives discussing how the coffee was actually being served at temperatures not considered safe.

So IF someone found a Democratic Party email discussing strategy and it listed legalizing illegal immigrants specifically for the purpose of gaining their votes, couldn't that somehow be seen as a crime? Especially when you consider the federal laws being ignored (which led to Arizona's law), the deaths of American citizens and law enforcement agents, the deaths of illegals, etc.

If they can suggest that Clinton needed to be impeached for lying about a blowjob or Bush should have been impeached because an intelligence agency lied about Iraq, then shouldn't it be reasonable to suggest B. Rock be, at the very least, impeached based on his handling of the illegal immigrant situation?

I mean, he's not enforcing a federal law, despite a state's begging that they need help. People are dying, and his response is to sue the state?

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 07 2010,13:00

Is he throwing America under the bus?

Remember when for years Obama attended the white people/America is racist church?

Remember when his wife was, for the first time in her life, proud to be American?

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 07 2010,15:05

QUOTE

It's an indisputable scientific that hot coffee will burn you. Willfully placing people in that kind of situation can make you legally liable for causing them harm, I suppose.

QUOTE

So IF someone found a Democratic Party email discussing strategy and it listed legalizing illegal immigrants specifically for the purpose of gaining their votes, couldn't that somehow be seen as a crime?

What law is he breaking? It's not a crime to conspire to extend citizenship or other normal domestic privileges to foreigners if there's a legal basis that lets you do so. You'd need the memo to say that the feds are deliberately not going to enforce or hinder the law. You could make the argument that Woodrow Wilson gave women the right to vote specifically so he could get reelected.

QUOTE

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.

This pisses me off. The feds wrangled absolute legal authority from the states years ago. In the case of drug laws, the federal government can impose its own penalties if the state in question doesn't have any. That's why all the dispensaries get closed in Cali all the time. They got that because of the interstate commerce clause, which is really just a special case of things from outside a state coming into one, ergo it falls under the auspices of the national state instead of the individual province. The federal laws are the minimum level of harshness an offender can expect in that case. In the area of immigration, however, it appears to be the opposite. They're now saying that Arizona's penalties exceed those of the gov't.

QUOTE

Three of the five Democrats in Arizona's congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect.

Have fun getting thrown under the bus, sacrificial goats.

QUOTE

Arizona State University constitutional law professor Paul Bender said the federal government's involvement throws a lot of weight behind the argument that federal law pre-empts Arizona's measure.

"It's important to have the federal government's view of whether state law is inconsistent with federal law, and they're the best people to say that," Bender said.

What the fuck are you smoking? Go back to Russia, commie.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 07 2010,15:09

Reading about this around the internet, I see two kinds of people arguing about this:

Pro-Arizona: Uh, they're just trying to enforce the law.

Anti-Arizona: They are all a bunch of white people scared of brown people.

There's no hate like liberal hate.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 07 2010,15:36

(Leisher @ Jul. 07 2010,13:22)

QUOTE

Can't treason also be the intentional destruction, weakening, etc. of the country even if it isn't to aid a specific foreign power?

Nope. Treason is pretty specific. Without the "foreign power" clause it might just be revolution, which the founders didn't frown on quite as much.

As to this lawsuit, I'm looking forward to it. I'd like to see the 10th get a little attention for once in our history, and this might just be the case to do it. Wouldn't it be funny if they ruled on that basis and negated 95% of the federal government in the process?

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 07 2010,15:54

I think it's more likely the Arizona Law is declared unconstitutional, and hey, the Federal Law is unconstitutional, too.... so now we need to just give all those illegals amnesty. Shucks, aint it weird how that turned out?

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 07 2010,16:28

If federal law gets to under- and over-cut state laws arbitrarily, then it's not even a fucking republic anymore.