• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Despite threatening to mount legal challenges to the AZ bill Holder has not read it

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think I've read every, or almost every, thread in this forum about the new AZ law over the past few weeks. I've seen many posts claiming it was unconstitutional. I don't recall ever reading a post where someone quoted the section of the bill and the section of the constitution that it was violating.

I'd really like to know HOW it's violating the constitution.
 
DAGTA said:
I think I've read every, or almost every, thread in this forum about the new AZ law over the past few weeks. I've seen many posts claiming it was unconstitutional. I don't recall ever reading a post where someone quoted the section of the bill and the section of the constitution that it was violating.

I'd really like to know HOW it's violating the constitution.
Click to expand...

there will be no quotes because nothing can be quoted that meets your criteria, just the idiots getting their talking point from the uneducated left. really shows how sheep like the left is.
 
I worked at a law firm and this is not uncommon at this juncture. Typically a lead attorney won't review a lot of things, another attorney or paralegal will and prepare a brief for the lead attorney. I can asure you, by the time he goes to court he will be throughly prepared to attack with complete knowledge of the bill.
 
Here are a couple things I found questionable.

Page 1

37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Unless he is an immigration officer, a regualr police officer does not have the right to arrest a person, unless they have commited a criminal offense. And no warrant requirement clearly could lead to harrassment.


40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
S.B. 1070
- 2 -
1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.

In one instance I think of off hand this conflicts with is emergency care. If a person comes into the hospital for treatment but refuses to give their name, you still have to treat them and it is illegal to call the cops to question them either unless its some kind of situation like a gunshot wound.

Page 2

3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER

This is sticky here. I will go out on a limb here and say if a person can confirm their identity, they should not have to confirm their citizenship except in certain instances, like applying for a job. The problem with the bill is that it allows a person to be detained to ascertain if they are legal or not. Bad news it ain't gonna fly. To be able to arrest and hold a person to confirm citizenship especially without a warrant is going to far. This bill may survive in some form, but not as it is currently constructed.
 
Last edited:
Lemon law said:
At least I can take comfort on the Sinsear statement of, "Only a total idiot would hold a press conference.

Earth to Sinsear, this was a judiciary committee hearing on which Holder was somewhat ambushed, not a press conference.

Its already clear that Holder blew the PR aspects of that hearing, but we should not expect our AG to be a PR expert. And the criticism of Gonzales was lying under oath, clearly not the case with Holder.

But long odds are, the justice department will file suit against the AZ law, and all the long history and politics of that Justice department decision to file suit will not amount to a hill of beans.

I have tried to avoid any pissing contests on the outcome of such a lawsuit, I am merely saying the question will be punted to our court system.

But we could ask another question, if Obama fires Holder for being a tin ear idiot, and gets someone better at PR, would it change a damn thing?
Click to expand...

PR blunder? He is the US Attorney General and he is commenting on a bill that he has neither read nor been briefed on (despite you argument otherwise, I'll take HIS word that he has not been briefed by his staff) and that is a "PR blunder"? Thats one hell of a reach, even for you. Should we not expect the attorney general to have at least a little bit of expert opinion (either himself or his staff) BEFORE he goes on national TV and makes statements that he is not sure is fact (because he hasn't read the bill nor has his staff briefed him on its contents)?

Regardless of your opinion of his public opinion on the law, I am honestly amazed that anyone is defending this type of incompetence from the US attorney general. I guess we are just used to it by now...
 
classy said:
This is sticky here. I will go out on a limb here and say if a person can confirm their identity, they should not have to confirm their citizenship except in certain instances, like applying for a job. The problem with the bill is that it allows a person to be detained to ascertain if they are legal or not. Bad news it ain't gonna fly. To be able to arrest and hold a person to confirm citizenship especially without a warrant is going to far. This bill may survive in some form, but not as it is currently constructed.
Click to expand...

I am no lawyer and I admit I am ignorant of laws that don't generally apply to me but I can be arrested and detained, without a warrant, while the police determine if I committed a crime. Isn't that what police do, arrest people they SUSPECT have committed crimes? Then the court determines if that person is indeed guilty or not?

In my home state it is law that you MUST carry legal identification at all times while in public. If a police officer asks me for ID and I can not present it (confirm my identity) I can and will be arrested. Is that unconstitutional as well?
 
Darwin333 said:
I am no lawyer and I admit I am ignorant of laws that don't generally apply to me but I can be arrested and detained, without a warrant, while the police determine if I committed a crime. Isn't that what police do, arrest people they SUSPECT have committed crimes? Then the court determines if that person is indeed guilty or not?

In my home state it is law that you MUST carry legal identification at all times while in public. If a police officer asks me for ID and I can not present it (confirm my identity) I can and will be arrested. Is that unconstitutional as well?
Click to expand...


A couple of things. One you are right about being arrested and detained, if you are suspected of commiting a crime. This law allows a person to be detained irregardless of a crime or not on suspicion if they are legal or not depsite having proper id. This means a police officer can walk down the street, stop a person to see if they are a legal citizen. Thats called harrassment.
Proper id doesn't necessarily mean a person is legal. Thats the key. A person can get legal id, but not be legal, but this law allows for a person to be arrested on pure suspicion till proven otherwise, whether they have commited a crime or not. My interpretation may be flawed but that language seems to allow this type of leeway.
 
DAGTA said:
I think I've read every, or almost every, thread in this forum about the new AZ law over the past few weeks. I've seen many posts claiming it was unconstitutional. I don't recall ever reading a post where someone quoted the section of the bill and the section of the constitution that it was violating.

I'd really like to know HOW it's violating the constitution.
Click to expand...
Ah who cares, both you and I are white, it's not going to affect us.
 
Darwin333

What is your home state?

I live in Ohio and would give my name to a cop, but not show ID without some reason or cause.

I would think it unconstitutional to require everyone to carry ID.
 
Red Dawn said:
Ah who cares, both you and I are white, it's not going to affect us.
Click to expand...

Really? So if my Canadian born wife was driving in Arizona without her green card and drivers license and gets pulled over for speeding they would just send her on her way? At minimum she would be violating the law that says that all legal immigrants must carry their green cards with them at all times. Under the AZ law they would haul her off to the station until they could verify that she was in the country legally and are entirely right to do so. Those against this law insist on trying to make it all about race when it explicitly is not about race, it is about being in the country illegally. There is little doubt that most of those found to be here illegally will be from Mexico and Central America but that is because they are the ones flooding across the southern border illegally by the 100's of thousands.
 
classy said:
A couple of things. One you are right about being arrested and detained, if you are suspected of commiting a crime. This law allows a person to be detained irregardless of a crime or not on suspicion if they are legal or not depsite having proper id. This means a police officer can walk down the street, stop a person to see if they are a legal citizen. Thats called harrassment.
Proper id doesn't necessarily mean a person is legal. Thats the key. A person can get legal id, but not be legal, but this law allows for a person to be arrested on pure suspicion till proven otherwise, whether they have commited a crime or not. My interpretation may be flawed but that language seems to allow this type of leeway.
Click to expand...
that's simply not true. once again, and for the last time, the law was modified to require that the suspect must be stopped, detained, or arrested for a different violation or criminal act before their immigration status can be questioned.
 
classy said:
A couple of things. One you are right about being arrested and detained, if you are suspected of commiting a crime. This law allows a person to be detained irregardless of a crime or not on suspicion if they are legal or not depsite having proper id. This means a police officer can walk down the street, stop a person to see if they are a legal citizen. Thats called harrassment.
Proper id doesn't necessarily mean a person is legal. Thats the key. A person can get legal id, but not be legal, but this law allows for a person to be arrested on pure suspicion till proven otherwise, whether they have commited a crime or not. My interpretation may be flawed but that language seems to allow this type of leeway.
Click to expand...

No, the police needs a different reason first. For example, if you were jaywalking, the police can stop you and ask for the ID. If you were just following the law, then the police can't do a single thing to you.
 
classy said:
Here are a couple things I found questionable.

Page 1

37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Unless he is an immigration officer, a regualr police officer does not have the right to arrest a person, unless they have commited a criminal offense. And no warrant requirement clearly could lead to harrassment.
Click to expand...

This is true of ANY criminal investigation. Why should the standard be different for immigration?

classy said:
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
S.B. 1070
- 2 -
1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.

In one instance I think of off hand this conflicts with is emergency care. If a person comes into the hospital for treatment but refuses to give their name, you still have to treat them and it is illegal to call the cops to question them either unless its some kind of situation like a gunshot wound.
Click to expand...

Hospitals do not fall under this rule. They are not agents of a government agency.

classy said:
Page 2

3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER

This is sticky here. I will go out on a limb here and say if a person can confirm their identity, they should not have to confirm their citizenship except in certain instances, like applying for a job. The problem with the bill is that it allows a person to be detained to ascertain if they are legal or not. Bad news it ain't gonna fly. To be able to arrest and hold a person to confirm citizenship especially without a warrant is going to far. This bill may survive in some form, but not as it is currently constructed.
Click to expand...

This is in compliance with federal law. It is REQUIRED for aliens to carry "their papers" at all times. So, until someone is proven one way or another, there is no legal reason why they cant be held, assuming probable cause. If a judge finds probable cause for the detainment was insufficient, the rest is fruit of the poisonous tree. Same as an illegal search that finds a body in someone's closet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top