Thursday, August 11, 2011, 11:27 AM EDT
The state of Arizona, led by Gov. Jan Brewer, has filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court, asking the court to consider the lower federal court rulings regarding its 2010 immigration-enforcement law. An Arizona federal district court and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain provisions of Arizona's law usurp federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Specifically, both of the lower courts ruled that police could not be required to ask for proof of immigration status when they come in contact with someone who they have reasonable suspicion to believe they are in the country illegally.
"For too long the federal government has turned a blind eye as this problem has manifested itself in the form of drop houses in our neighborhoods and crime in our communities," Brewer said in a written statement. "(The law) was Arizona's way of saying that we won't wait patiently for federal action any longer. If the federal government won't enforce its immigration laws, we will."
The law was first challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice shortly after Gov. Brewer signed the bill into law. A federal district judge ruled against the law's provisions pertaining to police inquiring about immigration status and requiring legal permanent residents to carry their green cards at all times. That ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court.
The Justice Department recently sued the state of Alabama after the state passed a law similar to Arizona's SB1070.
Comment:
Here we go, next round!
I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court to do what's right and go against the government's PC policies. However, they have made a few surprise rulings in recent months, so you never know. All we can do now is wait. Writing letters is a waste of time as the "justices" will do as they think is right (at least officially).
As I've said before, I think the Supreme Court operates on a false premise. They shouldn't decide an issue by doing what they think is right, but on what the Founding Fathers intended. And our Founding Fathers NEVER intended to permit uncontrolled immigration.
Sure, times have changed. But the Constitution can be amended to reflect changing times. If the people feel things should change, then the Constitution can be amended to reflect the will OF THE PEOPLE.
Remember, most of our Founding Fathers were slave owners, so they NEVER believed Blacks were equals. However, attitudes changed, so the Constitution was amended. Betsy Ross may have designed the first American flag, but she was NEVER allowed to vote, because men felt women were incapable of voting intelligently. Attitudes changed, and the Constitution was amended to give women the right to vote. There are many more examples.
This is what the Founding Fathers intended: To amend the Constitution to reflect changing times, and not for an influential, but less than a majority to force change on the majority by circumventing the Constitution by taking a short cut via the Supreme Court.
But it just goes to show you how little the PC drones care about the Constitution. Social change that comes too quickly can be damaging, but they don't care. When they want something, they want it NOW and don't give a damn about the will of the majority and how much damage their new ways may cause.
Proper change should come slowly. During the turbulent Civil Rights era, mobs of Blacks would take to the streets chanting, "Freedom NOW! Freedom NOW!". Well we know how much violence that caused. Now if they had chanted, "Freedom TOMORROW!" Things might have gone more smoothly. Maybe there would have been less violence and fewer killings. Who can really say? All I know is that the White South wasn't quite ready yet. They were coming along, but they weren't quite ready yet. A few more years and maybe they would've.
I'm sure that the government is quite aware of this. They just don't give a damn. They want things the way THEY want them, and in their eyes, WE THE PEOPLE don't count for a hill of beans anymore. And if you're White, you don't even count for that much.
Dan 88!
Dan, you know what your commentaries are very insightful these days and ironically the vast majority would agree with your position... except for the one thing they know neo nazis are all about the white race only and that little "neo nazi" label just makes your would be supporters scatter. If you could ever get past the labels, the rhetoric, the symbolism and create a NAME for this particular brand of political activism you might find that you get further with honey than you do vinegar. Of course just my two cents worth for the day.
ReplyDeleteWe are not Neo-Nazis. We are just National Socialist. Many people don't know what a National Socialist is, so we use the word Nazi sometimes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, we feel that to abandon the Swastika is to try and deceive people. We don't want them joining us, then leaving when they discover who we are. We want to be open and upfront from the beginning. We have nothing to hide. But I do appreciate honest, constructive criticism. So keep em' coming!
It's the destructive criticism like insults and put downs that I won't tolerate.