So he is torpedoing the Arizona law by making the illegals legal.
Gotta get those votes!
Arizona new law
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?thibodeaux wrote:Bwahahahaha.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
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.Leisher wrote:Obama's "Plan B" for illegal amnesty.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
From here.
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.
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.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
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?
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?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Leisher wrote: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?
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.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
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?
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?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
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.
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.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
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.Leisher wrote:Can't treason also be the intentional destruction, weakening, etc. of the country even if it isn't to aid a specific foreign power?
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?
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"