Sharpton vs. Arizona- YAILT

[PJABBER]

What crime would that be?

No crime if you are not violating the law. Definitely a crime if you are violating the law. Pick one.

Ah, hell, I'll make it easy for you. Here is a link to the USSC opinions, right above that is the Appellate Court opinion.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court

I found the following study fascinating. It references the above Supreme Court case that lays out the responsibilities for all parties. Good reading, though you should definitely refer to the original court writeup before accepting the untested conclusions of this particular study of that decision...

AN ANALYSIS OF A “STOP AND IDENTIFY” STATUTE IN HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA

 

[2Xtreme21]

No crime if you are not violating the law. Definitely a crime if you are violating the law. Pick one.

But it becomes a crime when you don't ID yourself? Love the logic buddy...

 

[her209]

No crime if you are not violating the law. Definitely a crime if you are violating the law. Pick one.

What law am I violating?

 

[PJABBER]

What law am I violating?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. :awe:

 

[her209]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. :awe:

Ignorance of the law is not against the law. So what law am I violating?

 

[PJABBER]

Ignorance of the law is not against the law. So what law am I violating?

Try it and see what happens. You might get lucky! Or a Supreme Court case out of it! I hear the Rev. Al is looking for volunteers.

:awe:

 

[Tristicus]

And you say I'm ignorant.

BTW: I praise the Rev. for this. Non-violent civil disobedience is exactly what has stuck it in the face of racist conservatives for generations.

Ahahaha, excuse me? First, weren't you the guy saying no group besides blacks have been discriminated against?

Racist conservatives? Please. You do realize that the people that wanted to prevent slavery were conservatives, the people that voted for repealing the Jim Crowe laws were Rep, and the opposition Dem, right? You see how Dems have greatly controlled towns like Detroit and how well they are keeping people in the ghetto.

Yep, conservatives are the racist ones.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Al smells money so he's packing up to head to Arizona. Meanwhile he'll do his hardest to paint illegal aliens as victims and distort the issue even though illegal aliens BROKE THE LAW to entire this nation and continue to do so by residing here illegally.

 

[blackangst1]

Ignorance of the law is not against the law. So what law am I violating?

If you break a law it is

 

[xj0hnx]

You seem good with people being forced to buy something they don't want or be punished, health care. Where is your right to be free there? The government has carte blanche then because it's something you want.

Now if police are found to be abusing this, they should be punished. Asking for ID in the course of normal duty isn't a violation of the Constitution.

The loony left only forces things on you that they think are good for you.

 

[xj0hnx]

How do you know - or more to the point, how will the police know - who is or isn't a U.S. citizen? Let me guess: the police will harass any Hispanic who looks "suspicious." You must be one of those gun-toting, 2nd-Amendment purists who find any other Constitutional principle - such as the ban on unreasonable searches and seizures - "immaterial."

You could show them a state drivers license, which is acceptable ID according to another version of the bill previously posted.

 

[Lemon law]

As this tangent thread goes on to predict how our current Scotus might rule on the constitutionality of the Arizona law, what ever position we various posters take now may or may not predict how Scotus rules.

But I also take a position, that even if the present SCOTUS upholds the Arizona law, in the longer term, a future SCOTUS will almost be forced to reverse many of its present recent, and IMHO foolish precedents.

Brown v. Board of education is just one example of SCOTUS throwing out the failed policies of the past. After all the lifespan of Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia can't last that much longer, just get rid of one of them in terms of a resignation or death by natural causes, and an entire body of SCOTUS activist law is likely to be reversed soon.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ignorance of the law is not against the law. So what law am I violating?

So if you didn't know that drinking and driving was illegal it'd be ok to get liquored up and go for a spin? No.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Ahahaha, excuse me? First, weren't you the guy saying no group besides blacks have been discriminated against?

Racist conservatives? Please. You do realize that the people that wanted to prevent slavery were conservatives, the people that voted for repealing the Jim Crowe laws were Rep, and the opposition Dem, right? You see how Dems have greatly controlled towns like Detroit and how well they are keeping people in the ghetto.

Yep, conservatives are the racist ones.

WHAT?

From the end of the Civil War, African Americans almost unanimously favored the Republican Party due to its overwhelming political and more tangible efforts in achieving abolition, particularly through President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. The south had long been a Democratic stronghold, favoring a state's right to legal slavery. In addition, the ranks of the fledgling Ku Klux Klan were comprised almost entirely of white Democrats angry over poor treatment by northerners, both perceived and actual. However, as years passed and memories waned, African Americans began drifting to the Democratic Party as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs gave economic relief to all minorities, including African Americans and Hispanics. Support for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s by Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson and a hard-fought Republican congressional movement, helped give the Democrats even larger support among the African American community, which consistently vote between 85-95% Democratic.

Call it what you want, the conservatives were the democrats back then. Again, conservatives have always been on the wrong side of progress.

 

[EagleKeeper]

As this tangent thread goes on to predict how our current Scotus might rule on the constitutionality of the Arizona law, what ever position we various posters take now may or may not predict how Scotus rules.

But I also take a position, that even if the present SCOTUS upholds the Arizona law, in the longer term, a future SCOTUS will almost be forced to reverse many of its present recent, and IMHO foolish precedents.

Brown v. Board of education is just one example of SCOTUS throwing out the failed policies of the past. After all the lifespan of Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia can't last that much longer, just get rid of one of them in terms of a resignation or death by natural causes, and an entire body of SCOTUS activist law is likely to be reversed soon.

And then possibly will generate a new body of judicial activism that will last 20-40 years before being overridden.

The USSC is to ensure that the laws are legal - not make up new ones.

The making of laws is up to Congress with the USSC as an oversight.

 

[Tristicus]

WHAT?



Call it what you want, the conservatives were the democrats back then. Again, conservatives have always been on the wrong side of progress.

Let's first ignore the fact that you posted a Wikipedia link about your party for the "facts". Read up on history, and it's blatantly obvious that you're kidding yourself.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Let's first ignore the fact that you posted a Wikipedia link about your party for the "facts". Read up on history, and it's blatantly obvious that you're kidding yourself.

Haha, so your only come back is the source? Get a frickin clue.

Early Republican ideology was reflected in the 1856 slogan free labor, free land, free men. "Free labor" referred to the Republican belief in a mobile middle class that left the workforce and set up small businesses. "Free land" referred to Republican efforts to facilitate this spirit of entrepreneurship by giving away government owned land. The Party hoped that this rapid growth would help check, and eventually end slavery.[9]

One from your own party.

Also, the source that's quoted is:

Foner, Eric. Free soil, free labor, free men: the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. 2nd. Oxford University Press, 1995 ISBN 0195094972, 9780195094978

Just admit you're wrong?

More:

The Republican Party was first organized in 1854, growing out of a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs and Free Soil Democrats who mobilized in opposition to Stephen Douglas's January 1854 introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act into Congress, a bill which repealed the 1820 Missouri Compromise prohibition on slavery north of latitude 36° 30' in the old Louisiana purchase territories, and so was viewed as an aggressive expansionist pro-slavery maneuver by many. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a radical vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#Creation

Source

Radical?? Republicans??????? Gee!

 

[Tristicus]

Haha, so your only come back is the source? Get a frickin clue.



One from your own party.

Also, the source that's quoted is:

Foner, Eric. Free soil, free labor, free men: the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. 2nd. Oxford University Press, 1995 ISBN 0195094972, 9780195094978

Just admit you're wrong?

More:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#Creation

Source

Radical?? Republicans??????? Gee!

Because that was really a comeback..what are we, three?
Good job assuming I'm a part of any party first of all.
You're still quoting Wiki links. Read up on REAL HISTORY, get a clue of how things actually have happened, and then try and talk tough over the internet. You expect me to take you seriously with shit like this:

But whatever. They're just ni**ers, right? Fuck 'em. Hell, fuck everyone who doesn't look like me. </conservatives in the US for the last 250 years>

?
Get a clue dude. It doesn't take but a small look at history to see that the Dems have been keeping the black population down for years upon years and you're blind ignorance to this is exactly what your "messiah" (as one of your loony friends dave likes to call him) loves from you guys.

 

[xj0hnx]

Let's first ignore the fact that you posted a Wikipedia link about your party for the "facts". Read up on history, and it's blatantly obvious that you're kidding yourself.

They usually forget that the vote went something like repubs 138 to 34 in favor, and dems 152-96, so 80% of repubs were for it, while only 61% of the dems, but hey, the pubs are always on the wrong side of progress.

 

[KMFJD]

Fuck that racist Al Sharpton

 

[nyker96]

Ahahaha, excuse me? First, weren't you the guy saying no group besides blacks have been discriminated against?

Racist conservatives? Please. You do realize that the people that wanted to prevent slavery were conservatives, the people that voted for repealing the Jim Crowe laws were Rep, and the opposition Dem, right? You see how Dems have greatly controlled towns like Detroit and how well they are keeping people in the ghetto.

Yep, conservatives are the racist ones.

This is actually historically actuate and fascinating. At 1st Republicans were the ones freeing slaves but that was the time when the South was represented by the Democrats.

However, during the Nixon years the Republican started to court the southern voters more as a way to secure a huge reliable voting block big enough to achieve a combined >65&#37; voting block which will guarantee easy victories in all future elections - the now coined Southern Strategy. This strategy worked beautifully allowing Republicans successfully stolen the South from the Democrats.

However in order for this to work, Republicans sacrificed on economic issues which left the black voting block vulnerable to an Democratic attack. And of course Democrats succeeded in taken the black voters from the Republican's hand in a counter attack using the economic issues as the platform. Thus completing the role reversal we now see. Had the Democrats not able to take the Black votes, with a combined black votes w/ Southern votes, Republicans would have won every presidential election since then!

So back in the days, Southerners vote Democrats and Republicans gets near 100% of Blacks votes. However, it was Democrats who were the conservatives while Republicans progressives back then.

 

[thegimp03]

Have fun sweating out in that nice Arizona heat, Sharpton.

 

[2Xtreme21]

This is actually historically actuate and fascinating. At 1st Republicans were the ones freeing slaves but that was the time when the South was represented by the Democrats.

However, during the Nixon years the Republican started to court the southern voters more as a way to secure a huge reliable voting block big enough to achieve a combined >65% voting block which will guarantee easy victories in all future elections - the now coined Southern Strategy. This strategy worked beautifully allowing Republicans successfully stolen the South from the Democrats.

However in order for this to work, Republicans sacrificed on economic issues which left the black voting block vulnerable to an Democratic attack. And of course Democrats succeeded in taken the black voters from the Republican's hand in a counter attack using the economic issues as the platform. Thus completing the role reversal we now see. Had the Democrats not able to take the Black votes, with a combined black votes w/ Southern votes, Republicans would have won every presidential election since then!

So back in the days, Southerners vote Democrats and Republicans gets near 100% of Blacks votes. However, it was Democrats who were the conservatives while Republicans progressives back then.

You better have a source for that!!!!!!!!!!!!11