Arizona's New Immigration Law

[GhettoDogAllStars]

@TTE: Good post. You should try the positive approach more often -- supporting your arguments to make a point, rather than attacking other viewpoints with hateful blabber. I'll bet you're good at it.

@mlmpetert: As best I can tell (from other sources) those people are not illegals, they only support illegal immigration (or oppose the law, I can't tell). Shame on CNN for missing that.

On another note, who the hell cares about defacing the flag? Is one form of free-speech better or worse than another? I would never dream of defacing the flag, but I don't get caught up in sensationalism. (let the flaming begin)

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

@TTE: Good post. You should try the positive approach more often -- supporting your arguments to make a point, rather than attacking other viewpoints with hateful blabber. I'll bet you're good at it.

@mlmpetert: As best I can tell (from other sources) those people are not illegals, they only support illegal immigration (or oppose the law, I can't tell). Shame on CNN for missing that.

On another note, who the hell cares about defacing the flag? Is one form of free-speech better or worse than another? I would never dream of defacing the flag, but I don't get caught up in sensationalism. (let the flaming begin)

Yeah i was wondering if they were illegals or not. I dont think they did anything illegal, so i dont think the cops had any reason to verify if they were legal or not. Regardless i think its poor taste for any media outlet to label people illegals without offering any explanation how they know this.

Also Slinging Sammy, i was raised Catholic and was an altar boy for the Alexandria diocese (i wasnt raped, fyi). I am not a practicing Catholic and have not been for at least 10 years. I followed my mom after she stopped going to church when the whole alter boy scandal stuff came out, primarily because of the way it was handled and covered up. I know other people who also have lost faith in the Catholic church because of what happened, and what continues to happen. I would have to assume that part of the growth in the church is due to the growth of the Hispanic population, since it seems most Hispanic people are Catholic. Either way TTE use of the word karma was very insensitive and wrong.

[saden1]

Crime happens in America all the time, I don't give a shit who commits them so long as they are punished. Carry on.

[CRedskinsRule]

I'd really like a lawyer to chime in, but here is a good article on original jurisdiction:

The Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - United States Constitution

[saden1]

There is lots of historical background on the subject but all that's needed is The Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by the first congress:

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

p.s. You can take any suite to the Supreme Court but that doesn't mean it will get reviewed and you get adjudication.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

There is lots of historical background on the subject but all that's needed is The Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by the first congress:

I am sure we can bicker back and forth, but The Judiciary Act of 1789, and specifically part of clause 13 was nullified by Marshall:

Originally Posted by From my other link

However, another clause of § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was not accorded the same presumption by Chief Justice Marshall, who, interpreting it as giving the Court power to issue a writ of mandamus on an original proceeding, declared that as Congress could not restrict the original jurisdiction neither could it enlarge it and pronounced the clause void.1093

I doubt gafinfan's right that the lawsuit was invalid solely because it was brought in the wrong court, but really, unless I miss my guess, none of us are Supreme Court scholars.

Of course I realize Saden stays at a Holiday Inn Express EVERY night, so he is always chocked full of knowledge!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am sure we can bicker back and forth, but The Judiciary Act of 1789, and specifically part of clause 13 was nullified by Marshall:


I doubt gafinfan's right that the lawsuit was invalid solely because it was brought in the wrong court, but really, unless I miss my guess, none of us are Supreme Court scholars.

Of course I realize Saden stays at a Holiday Inn Express EVERY night, so he is always chocked full of knowledge!

You're sure he nullified section 13? You should read your own link again, understand it, then try again. Nullify means a specific thing.

You don't have to be a Supreme Court Scholar or stay at a Holiday Inn to know you sue officials in Federal Courts before the Supreme Court. I have sued several federal official pro-se and successfully in Federal Court.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're sure he nullified section 13? You should read your own link again, understand it, then try again. Nullify means a specific thing.

You don't have to be a Supreme Court Scholar or stay at a Holiday Inn to know you sue officials in Federal Courts before the Supreme Court. I have sued several federal official pro-se and successfully in Federal Court.

I didn't say he nullified section 13, I said he nullified a part (or clause) of it, or as my link said, he voided it. But, please continue your lectures, personally I am always entertained.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I didn't say he nullified section 13, I said he nullified a part (or clause) of it, or as my link said, he voided it. But, please continue your lectures, personally I am always entertained.

I enjoy being professorial...you reach I teach is my motto.

[gafinfan]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're sure he nullified section 13? You should read your own link again, understand it, then try again. Nullify means a specific thing.

You don't have to be a Supreme Court Scholar or stay at a Holiday Inn to know you sue officials in Federal Courts before the Supreme Court. I have sued several federal official pro-se and successfully in Federal Court.

Oh dear, are you the President or the AG suing a State?

Let us be clear about which we debate and Marshall was right IMVHO.

The full text:

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Marshall was quite correct in his ruling: In all other cases the Congress shall have Exceptions as they may by law have directed.

One doesn't have to be a lawyer to see that common sense tells us that if Congress were to be able to legislate the Supreme Court there would be no justification for having one in the first place. It is in fact one of the three branches equal to and in balance with the other two. JMO of course being I never stay at the Holiday Inn.

BTW I never said one couldn't do whatever as surely history has shown us the government has trashed the Constitution whenever they felt the need to grab more power, as in any crisis will do. Never the less that does not make it right.

[saden1]

You're right, they're all stupid and wrong about the Constitution and case jurisdiction. Sadly the Constitution means nothing anymore and people seem to be OK with it.

[SmootSmack]

FRBSF Economic Letter: The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity (2010-26, 8/30/2010)

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

FRBSF Economic Letter: The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity (2010-26, 8/30/2010)

I think it only to fair to post an "Idaho" Federal Reserve publication to neutralize your SF post.

[saden1]

Florida's Arizona-Style Immigration Bill Would Give Canadians, Europeans a Free Pass - Miami News - Riptide 2.0

i guess people from visa waiver countries can't be here illegally.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

Florida's Arizona-Style Immigration Bill Would Give Canadians, Europeans a Free Pass - Miami News - Riptide 2.0

i guess people from visa waiver countries can't be here illegally.

Its not that they cant, but because they dont want to be here permanently, legally or not. People from visa waiver counties live in developed and politically stable counties. America and other counties allow visa waiver countries to visit their economies for up to 90 days without additional paperwork.

The headline is misleading because only part of Europe (the non-emerging counties) are included. Not all of Europe is allowed, just the part that is developed and politically secure. Apparently people from developed and politically stable countries arnt usually illegal immigrants.... who knew?

Also 4 countries from Asia are allowed (which the headline neglects to include for some reason) in addition to the Australia and New Zealand.