Dear President Obama: No One in Arizona is Laughing.

[wa3zrm]

[texasmade]

national guard....dumbass governor...they're there for a reason

[sgreger1]

People are dying. murderers are walking free. Stop the war on terrorism. our soldiers should be hunting down and killing the southern drug cartels every minute of every day.i would re-enlist to get a piece of that action. osama bin laden never committed anywhere near the crimes mexicos people have. Bring our dead americans some justice. stop the cartels.

[danielan]

Joking about the issue was a bone-headed move.

[tom502]

I think Obama is like a more likeable Al Sharpton with a hint of creamer. His whole strategy is to appeal to the bleeding heart liberals, and poor, and non white people, by promoting an agenda to take away from the haves and give freely to the have nots, all the while wheeling and dealing with big corporations.

[Judge Faust]

The joke was amusing and on point. Personally, however, I find two things more interesting here...

First of all, it is fascinating to note how little independent thought you neo-cons actually put into any of this. For instance, you seem to have swallowed the, er... "facts" presented in that little montage hook, line, and sinker. Myself, I would very much like to see some evidence proving the allegation that Arizona "often" chooses not to prosecute those found with fewer than 500 pounds of narcotics on their persons. Really? A pound of crack or coke is enough to put a person behind bars for close to life anywhere else in the US, but in Arizona you can carry 500 times that and walk away as if nothing had happened? Yeah, I'm not buying that from a random Youtube video. Way to go, you deep thinkers, you...

Secondly, I find it amusing how little regard you people seem to put into your own Constitution. Sure, you will scream all day long about your 2nd Amendment rights... But when it comes to a state law that clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Not a squeak. What a bunch of hypocrites. If you're going to piss all over your core legal document, at least be consistent about it - don't simply pick the parts that you personally happen to prefer. Yeesh.

[danielan]

I assume you mean this part:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Could you explain?

[texasmade]

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him.

After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

And that, your honour, is why I was at the border shooting at illegal immigrants - to deter the rest.

[Judge Faust]

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Could you explain?

Sure. It's the "equal protection of the laws part." Basically, over the past century, the US Supreme Court has held it to mean that no identifiable group of individuals (think gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) may constitutionally be treated differently than any other group.

Examples: the Supreme Court struck down prohibitions on black jurors. And a law that implicitly gave San Francisco commissioners the power to discriminate against laundromat owners based on ethnicity. And a New York law that barred non-US citizens from public service jobs. And a Colorado referendum that made it impossible to pass anti-homosexual discrimination legislation. And a rule that a Virginia military school was for males only.

The Equal Protection Clause has been applied very broadly, and is now pretty much at the zenith of its power. A government simply cannot survive a constitutional challenge to a law that, explicitly or implicitly, harms a distinct group. This is doubly so if the group is a minority. The Arizona law explicitly allows targeting non-whites without probable cause. This is a very clear Equal Protection Clause violation - so much so that I am inclined to believe that it was passed for PR reasons alone, with absolutely no expectations that it would withstand any kind of legal challenge.

[danielan]

This is a very clear Equal Protection Clause violation.

Are you suggesting that the 14th amendment applies to citizens of other nations?

We legally discriminate along a variety of lines every day. Felons cannot vote or own guns. Minors cannot purchase alcohol. etc.

I don't think it really applies here. 'Undocumented Alien' is not a protected class, IMO. And not being citizens, I'm not sure that it could be applied to them.

If AZ applies this in a manner that results in illegal discrimination then they will get sued. But from reading the text of the law it does not appear to a violation on its face, IMO.

[danielan]

The joke was amusing and on point.

It was a bit funny. If it had been a late night comedian and not the president I would have found it more funny.

The problem with him delivering it is that, as the leader of the executive branch, he is basically joking about not doing his job - which sucks.

And, it's a bit racist. ("And we all know what happens when you don't have id in Arizona - Adios Amigos")

[texasmade]

Are you suggesting that the 14th amendment applies to citizens of other nations?

We legally discriminate along a variety of lines every day. Felons cannot vote or own guns. Minors cannot purchase alcohol. etc.

I don't think it really applies here. 'Undocumented Alien' is not a protected class, IMO. And not being citizens, I'm not sure that it could be applied to them.

If AZ applies this in a manner that results in illegal discrimination then they will get sued. But from reading the text of the law it does not appear to a violation on its face, IMO.

actually some states allow felons to vote from prison or once their term has been served

[Judge Faust]

Are you suggesting that the 14th amendment applies to citizens of other nations?

We legally discriminate along a variety of lines every day. Felons cannot vote or own guns. Minors cannot purchase alcohol. etc.

I don't think it really applies here. 'Undocumented Alien' is not a protected class, IMO. And not being citizens, I'm not sure that it could be applied to them.

If AZ applies this in a manner that results in illegal discrimination then they will get sued. But from reading the text of the law it does not appear to a violation on its face, IMO.

I am not simply "suggesting" that the 14th Amendment applies to citizens of other nations - I am citing your own Supreme Court on that. I mentioned the New York law in my last post; that comes from a long line of so-called "alienage" cases, which pretty much held that states cannot discriminate against aliens unless it comes to sharing top-secret info with them. So, yes, the Equal Protection Clause applies here, no doubt.

Also, none of these cases have said anything about "protected classes," so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. What you have under this analysis are suspect, quasi-suspect, and non-suspect classifications. Suspect classes get the most judicial protection - more so than gender (quasi-suspect) and sexual orientation (non-suspect). And guess what? National origin and race are currently the only two suspect classifications. Laws targeting these groups get strict scrutiny review, which is often referred to as "strict in scrutiny, fatal in fact." That is, when a law goes up against strict scrutiny, it dies well over 9 times out of 10. The ones that emerge alive tend to be those that involve helping rather than harming a minority - for example, affirmative action programs. I do not foresee this Arizonan miscarriage of justice surviving a District Court, much less making it alive all the way through a Supreme Court decision.

[Judge Faust]

Also, Danielan:

Felons and minors have both been held to be non-suspect classifications. They get rational basis review. A law targeting them is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, which is a very low standard to meet. If aliens were non-suspect, the Arizona law would probably survive. Luckily, aliens are a suspect class. Hence, adios misguided Southern codification of hysterical xenophobia...

[sgreger1]

The joke was amusing and on point. Personally, however, I find two things more interesting here...

First of all, it is fascinating to note how little independent thought you neo-cons actually put into any of this. For instance, you seem to have swallowed the, er... "facts" presented in that little montage hook, line, and sinker. Myself, I would very much like to see some evidence proving the allegation that Arizona "often" chooses not to prosecute those found with fewer than 500 pounds of narcotics on their persons. Really? A pound of crack or coke is enough to put a person behind bars for close to life anywhere else in the US, but in Arizona you can carry 500 times that and walk away as if nothing had happened? Yeah, I'm not buying that from a random Youtube video. Way to go, you deep thinkers, you...

Secondly, I find it amusing how little regard you people seem to put into your own Constitution. Sure, you will scream all day long about your 2nd Amendment rights... But when it comes to a state law that clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Not a squeak. What a bunch of hypocrites. If you're going to piss all over your core legal document, at least be consistent about it - don't simply pick the parts that you personally happen to prefer. Yeesh.

Judge, this video was put out by Arizona's governor, so not exactly a random youtube video. Also, this has been known for some time that illegals are routinely let off without going to jail, and that problem extends into many border states such as Texas. Your a lawyer, I am sure you could data-mine the facts to prove it either way if you looked it up.

2nd, for years and years and years we have been required to show our identification to a police officer if arrested, detained, or stopped for a traffic violation. Why all of a sudden do people have a problem with it now? Immigrants have been required under federal law to carry their papers with them on their person since the 1940's. Again, nothing has really changed. This law is really just passing the authority to enforce these laws down to the state, but even then the police officers have to verify your identification pursuant to section 8 of the federal code. So really, not much changed. I am just curious why everyone is so upset about this when it's been the law for 70 years.

I also find it interesting that you have taken it upon yourself to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are valid at any given moment, depending on how expedient it is for you. Like you will cite how important it is to uphold the 14th amendment, yet take a giant steaming shit on anyone who references their 2nd amendment rights? It just seems that both sides are not being consistent here, imo.


Even though precedent has been set for decades upon decades, and this is not a new law in essence, I am sure our corrupt supreme court will rule in favor of criminals as opposed to citizens, this has been their track record for some time. Of that I have no doubt. But the law was made to incite debate on this topic that has gone under the radar for too long, and in that sense they have already won.

Also, this is not just "neo-cons" that support this law. I don't appreciate how you stereotype a wide variety of opinions as "neo-con", as there are people from many different political affiliations that are for this law. Particularly the residents of Arizona. But in the end we will see what the supreme court does. I personally don't have much faith that this law will stand, even though it should, but the supreme court is racist and cares more about race than justice or the rule of law.