Supreme Court to Decide on Arizona's SB1070

[TBoneTX 45,329]

There was a time when a checkpoint inside the country would have been seen as a violation of the constitution.

The Fourth Amendment is on (failing) life support, with the Fifth Amendment (and several others) not far behind.

The inland checkpoint south of Alpine, Texas is probably THE epicenter of the "de-Constitutionalized zone" within the 100-mile radius of the Mexican border. Even U.S. citizens are completely abused there: "No, you're NOT free to go until you answer all my questions!"

On the original issue: I can't entirely wrap my brain around the idea that non-USCs "must" carry ID, whereas USCs don't have to. If a Hispanic-looking person with a thick accent is a naturalized USC, how does a regular LEO (whether well-meaning or a pig) determine whether he is telling the truth without detaining him and checking him out? Are National ID Cards in all of our futures? If so, heaven help us.

On an issue that came up later: Those state "failure to identify" laws are a crock and were a dagger into the battered, bleeding Fourth Amendment. See the Hiibel Supreme Court decision, which even John Paul Stevens disagreed with.

Edited April 26, 2012 by TBoneTX

[luckytxn 2,264]

The Fourth Amendment is on (failing) life support, with the Fifth Amendment (and several others) not far behind.

The inland checkpoint south of Alpine, Texas is probably THE epicenter of the "de-Constitutionalized zone" within the 100-mile radius of the Mexican border. Even U.S. citizens are completely abused there: "No, you're NOT free to go until you answer all my questions!"

On the original issue: I can't entirely wrap my brain around the idea that non-USCs "must" carry ID, whereas USCs don't have to. If a Hispanic-looking person with a thick accent is a naturalized USC, how does a regular LEO (whether well-meaning or a pig) determine whether he is telling the truth without detaining him and checking him out? Are National ID Cards in all of our futures? If so, heaven help us.

On an issue that came up later: Those state "failure to identify" laws are a crock and were a dagger into the battered, bleeding Fourth Amendment. See the Hiibel Supreme Court decision, which even John Paul Stevens disagreed with.

Probable cause. That is all SCOTUS had to give authorities to do anything they want and get away with it. Homeland security was among the largest Fed power grabs ever and the sheep said nothing. All in the name of security. Where is SCOTUS on this?

[TBoneTX 45,329]

All in the name of security. Where is SCOTUS on this?

More than one lawyer with whom I've chatted thinks that most of this stuff is unconstitutional, but that it will take years for it to be declared so and that the people who challenge it will wish they hadn't.

[luckytxn 2,264]

More than one lawyer with whom I've chatted thinks that most of this stuff is unconstitutional, but that it will take years for it to be declared so and that the people who challenge it will wish they hadn't.

I don't know but I disagree. I think it is here to stay forever and even worse in the future. We are pretty close to Orwell now. The people want cradle to grave Fed involvement. They hoped that Obama would get it and he failed miserably. The GOP will get it for them. People will be dancing in the streets when the Feds go cradle to grave. The total power grab. Amazing to see the U.S. go down so completely in my lifetime. Scotus will give it to them too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Finally, two regular right wingers realizing the encroachment of our civil liberties by these ill conceived state laws on immigration enforcement. These laws continue to be popular among the Right.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Finally, two regular right wingers realizing the encroachment of our civil liberties by these ill conceived state laws on immigration enforcement. These laws continue to be popular among the Right.

oh please. SB1070 does nothing but add an extra thing to check when you've been pulled over for LEGAL reasons already. Get a grip.

[TBoneTX 45,329]

SB1070 does nothing but add an extra thing to check when you've been pulled over for LEGAL reasons already. Get a grip.

Actually, I must somewhat disagree with both Steven AND Paul. Dig this highly readable legal brief (see, man), from The Rutherford Institute:

https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/03-27-2012_Brief_Arizona.pdf

Among other points, it covers my concern (posted earlier here) about the need to carry documents, and it also raises a good point about the Fourteenth Amendment ("one class of citizenship").

This does NOT change my support for immigration enforcement, no man, but SB1070 has some severe wrinkles that need to be ironed out, sigh man.

Your further opinions, please, after you read the brief, si man.

Edited April 26, 2012 by TBoneTX

[Petition2252 7]

Yep. They don't need those in New Jersey. Nobody wants to go there anyway.

Some of these "Permanent Checkpoints" are open randomly.

Camp Pendleton/Oceanside (I5-N) and Temecula (I15-N) ones are hardly open these days maybe 10% of the time. Otherwise you drive right through.