Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I fvcking hate Villaraigosa. I'm not going to back down from that. But I'm not going to say he's crazy or unstable.

he - and apparently others in the la council - have to be crazy to be running off at the mouth without taking into consideration how arizona scratches their back.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it was intended to protect people FORCEFULLY brought here as slaves. not people snubbing their noses at the laws of this country.

why should it?

The Second Amendment has been subjected to significant interpretation beyond the original context of the constitution, why shouldn't similar reasoning be applied elsewhere?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Does it have to get to the point where we ask everybody for there legal documentation. I wish we could just use some common sense and let these cops do there job.

Complaints about language profiling is a new one to me. Acting nervously and unable to produce ID could also lead to reasonable suspicion.

Yes of course, legally that is the only way they can avoid the issue of racial profiling, they ask everyone.

[SMOKE 1,426]

The Second Amendment has been subjected to significant interpretation beyond the original context of the constitution, why shouldn't similar reasoning be applied elsewhere?

were talking 14th amendment. leave your personal gun rights views out of this.

Edited May 19, 2010 by SMOKE

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

were talking 14th amendment. leave your personal gun rights views out of this.

I'm talking the constitution (in general) being interpreted beyond it's original context. The second amendment is an example of this.

Yes of course, legally that is the only way they can avoid the issue of racial profiling, they ask everyone.

Indeed. If they do not do this then it becomes a matter of course to single out people of color (or accent) - just as it did in the UK during the 1960s.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I'm talking the constitution (in general) being interpreted beyond it's original context. The second amendment is an example of this.

yeah, because "..shall not be infringed" is so open to interpretation.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The thread is yet another example of OT trash. Someone asks El E. how the law is at odds with the Constitution. He posts a legal opinion showing this, and instead of debating the opinion, half of you go straight in to personal attacks against him. Do you have no argument?

Start debating this issues instead of going straight to attack mode on the poster.

[The_Dude 1,142]

yeah, because "..shall not be infringed" is so open to interpretation.

Oh no, don't bother talking interpretation to Charles. He'll quote Charlton Heston all day long, let alone try to actually argue the context of the 2nd amendment when it was written

[DukeOfYork 28]

The language you speak does not equal reasonable suspicion and is a sign of profiling. No offense, but I'll take a legal opinion from someone who actually studies the law over someone who thinks that every language but English automatically denotes an illegal.

So not having a valid state or federal ID on you and not being able to produce [even if not on you] does not lead to reasonable suspicion? I'm afraid that if I gave you any sort of scenario of "reasonable suspicion", you'd find a problem with it, ie. known drug/human trafficking corridors in AZ.

You'll also note that I stated that the inability to speak English is in some cases, not all. The same could happen to a Canadian illegal immigrant in the same scenario.

And you did not address the fact that ICE does the same sort of "profiling". I guess you don't have a problem with that.

Our failure on a Federal level to secure the border is more than a security issue. Given the amount of drug and human trafficking, it's a human rights issue as well. But I guess liberals don't care about the human trafficking that leads to slave labor in this country. We don't want to catch the bad guys out of fear we'll offend someone.

I'm still waiting for a fact-filled demonstration of how this law is unconstitutional. The claim has been made, now back it up.

[jimnlena 8]

Some words from Mexico:

The Mexican government rejects efforts "to criminalize migration so that people (who) work and provide things to this nation will be treated as criminals," Calderon said. "We oppose firmly" the Arizona law, which is "partial and discriminatory."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yeah, because "..shall not be infringed" is so open to interpretation.

Sure Charles - because there is no context whatsoever to that statement is there.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Oh no, don't bother talking interpretation to Charles. He'll quote Charlton Heston all day long, let alone try to actually argue the context of the 2nd amendment when it was written

actually, i'm quoting the constitution.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thread is yet another example of OT trash. Someone asks El E. how the law is at odds with the Constitution. He posts a legal opinion showing this, and instead of debating the opinion, half of you go straight in to personal attacks against him. Do you have no argument?

Start debating this issues instead of going straight to attack mode on the poster.

VJ OT is a ####### place for debate.

It's become like this (it wasn't always this way) because there are uneducated idiots who haven't had to formulate much of an argument outside of what they are spoon-fed by the mass media.

It's why soundbites, slogans and news commentary shows are so popular in the US.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Sure Charles - because there is no context whatsoever to that statement is there.

no, but you'll do better i'm sure.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So not having a valid state or federal ID on you and not being able to produce [even if not on you] does not lead to reasonable suspicion? I'm afraid that if I gave you any sort of scenario of "reasonable suspicion", you'd find a problem with it, ie. known drug/human trafficking corridors in AZ.

You'll also note that I stated that the inability to speak English is in some cases, not all. The same could happen to a Canadian illegal immigrant in the same scenario.

And you did not address the fact that ICE does the same sort of "profiling". I guess you don't have a problem with that.

Our failure on a Federal level to secure the border is more than a security issue. Given the amount of drug and human trafficking, it's a human rights issue as well. But I guess liberals don't care about the human trafficking that leads to slave labor in this country. We don't want to catch the bad guys out of fear we'll offend someone.

I'm still waiting for a fact-filled demonstration of how this law is unconstitutional. The claim has been made, now back it up.

A. You don't need ID unless your driving a vehicle.

B. Does ICE make daily traffic stops

I've made bold your last statement. Someone posted a legal opinion. You ignored that opinion and began to trash talk the poster.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Sousuke