Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[Arch Stanton]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so. Today is going to be a "deport the illegals" lunch...can I expect to see you on the other side of the fence? Apologist?

Obviously the state is not doing it's job very well if they felt the need to crack down on illegals rampantly getting work in the state with a new law and costly court battles with the Fed. How many guys have they arrested picking up workers at Home Depot in the last year? According to your observations in other threads, the threat of this law has massively cut down on the amount of workers at HD. But if the state were doing it's job, those guys wouldn't have been there until now. If was designed to stop people at the border rather than when they are job seeking and going about their business once they're in the state then I'd probably think the gov't is doing a good job. But obviously it isn't.

eta: No, I am not an apologist. I want the money going to illegals to be taxed just like my pay is. But it seems like all the hubbub is about the people coming in rather than the people enticing them to come in by offering them employment. A seriously hard crack down on businesses and individuals that utilize illegals as labor would cut down on the problems. It's like going after the drug users instead of the dealers. Remove the dealers.

The State has tried to do a better job of that, but since Obama is making it hard on them it's almost impossible to enforce. He's challenged not only 1070 but the bill that was pushed through in 07 that punished employers...a bill that Napolitano actually pushed through.No one is saying the employers aren't partially at fault, but you seem to absolve the illegals themselves....

You're reading into it what you want to. I never touched on the illegals' actions because I was trying to point out the disparity in venom spewed between them and the ones that hire them. Your last post seems to be a bit of a contradiction from the bolded above. Either they actually are cracking down and continuing to do so or it's almost impossible for them to do that. Which is it? And how is Obama making it hard to enforce vs how well it was enforced before Obama started making it hard?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here?

.... We might be able to construct some type of scenario where a law is unconstitutional due to preemption but we can't point to any harm to the public or the feds. ...

How high is the bar of the "harm to the feds"? I think the federal government has a pretty basic argument that it cannot exercise federal powers at the whims of state laws. In this particular case it seems to be does a state creating a law that causes an increase workload qualify as interfering with its ability to perform its job? (There are a few other issues, but this is the one I have been addressing here for about a month.)

If there is too much of a workload for the regulation to be enforced then remove the regulation and allow the state to handle the situation without a preemption issue.But we know that isn't the case. The real reason is that this administration (and past ones to be fair) along with this Congress (and past ones to be fair) simply don't want to enforce the regulation. It has nothing to do with resources. That is just used as the political cover. We've seen this government spend trillions of dollars on things it wants to. It created a whole new federal department in the wake of hte 9/11 attacks in the span of less then a year. The immigration laws and border security regulations can be enforced fairly easily if the federal government would do its job. But it specifically has chosen not to, and the legal argument to back that up is that its policy.

 

[scoobygang]

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here?

.... We might be able to construct some type of scenario where a law is unconstitutional due to preemption but we can't point to any harm to the public or the feds. ...

How high is the bar of the "harm to the feds"? I think the federal government has a pretty basic argument that it cannot exercise federal powers at the whims of state laws. In this particular case it seems to be does a state creating a law that causes an increase workload qualify as interfering with its ability to perform its job? (There are a few other issues, but this is the one I have been addressing here for about a month.)

I was speaking hypothetically. I think most judges will find the enforcement of a (presumptively) unconstitutional state law to be inherently harmful. My only point is that when the feds seek a preliminary injunction, the judge is supposed to consider the balance of the equities, which implicitly allows her to consider the harm to the state's interest, even if the government is likely to win on the merits. I'll try to give another example. Let's say that New York wants to impose a tariff on apples from Washington St. We all know that would be unconstitutional. At the TRO stage, however, it would be appropriate to at least consider the fact that apple growers in New York state are getting killed by interstate competition. Once we get to the merits, that's completely irrelevant.In this case, there are lots of good additional arguments that tilt the equities in favor of the government too. Those are less important, IMO, when the District Court is just considering the merits (although I must admit the judge largely addressed those arguments when determining preemption in her ruling to be fair to Yankees).

 

[Card Trader]

You're reading into it what you want to. I never touched on the illegals' actions because I was trying to point out the disparity in venom spewed between them and the ones that hire them.

Your last post seems to be a bit of a contradiction from the bolded above. Either they actually are cracking down and continuing to do so or it's almost impossible for them to do that. Which is it? And how is Obama making it hard to enforce vs how well it was enforced before Obama started making it hard?

No contradiction, they ARE doing it, it HAS been difficult considering the President is trying to ax it. It was being enforced and continues to be, there have been many days I'll turn on the evening news and they will have found employers who have knowingly hired illegals. They would have been able to further enforce this at a much more effective level, hopefully punishing the homeowner that picks them up from HD, had 1070 been left to stand without blocking the guts of it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

.. The real reason is that this administration (and past ones to be fair) along with this Congress (and past ones to be fair) simply don't want to enforce the regulation. ...

So "the purposes and objectives of congress" ends of being to not enforce the regulation. Thus it seems simple.

Arizona's causes of action ... stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" in enacting a statute Dow Chemical Company v. Exxon Corporation

Isn't this likely one of the argument the federal government will make?

 

[Card Trader]

How so?

http://www.google.com

The Obama administration halted enforcement of the law you just linked for me?

edit: I see your reference to the administration challenging that bill as well. My understanding was that the current injunction didn't apply to any of the employer provisions. Is that not the case?

p.s. You give Arch Stanton crap up above about commenting on something you say he knows little about. You're obviously up to speed on the issues. So when I ask a question, why the snarky google link?

Because you can see with a simple search that it hasn't been halted, but challenged. Here is the brief http://www.globalimmigrationcounsel.com/up...cusBrief(1).pdfBasically the law is "too tough" on employers.

Maybe I took your two word questions as snarky and responded that way, if I was mistaken I apologize.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here?

.... We might be able to construct some type of scenario where a law is unconstitutional due to preemption but we can't point to any harm to the public or the feds. ...

How high is the bar of the "harm to the feds"? I think the federal government has a pretty basic argument that it cannot exercise federal powers at the whims of state laws. In this particular case it seems to be does a state creating a law that causes an increase workload qualify as interfering with its ability to perform its job? (There are a few other issues, but this is the one I have been addressing here for about a month.)

I was speaking hypothetically. I think most judges will find the enforcement of a (presumptively) unconstitutional state law to be inherently harmful. My only point is that when the feds seek a preliminary injunction, the judge is supposed to consider the balance of the equities, which implicitly allows her to consider the harm to the state's interest, even if the government is likely to win on the merits. I'll try to give another example. Let's say that New York wants to impose a tariff on apples from Washington St. We all know that would be unconstitutional. At the TRO stage, however, it would be appropriate to at least consider the fact that apple growers in New York state are getting killed by interstate competition. Once we get to the merits, that's completely irrelevant.In this case, there are lots of good additional arguments that tilt the equities in favor of the government too. Those are less important, IMO, when the District Court is just considering the merits (although I must admit the judge largely addressed those arguments when determining preemption in her ruling to be fair to Yankees).

So ultimately the hypothetic harm to Arizona only matters when the judge is determining whether to force a state to hold off on implementing its questionable law, not (at least in this case) as to whether it matters if the law is unconstitutional.

 

[Arch Stanton]

You're reading into it what you want to. I never touched on the illegals' actions because I was trying to point out the disparity in venom spewed between them and the ones that hire them.

Your last post seems to be a bit of a contradiction from the bolded above. Either they actually are cracking down and continuing to do so or it's almost impossible for them to do that. Which is it? And how is Obama making it hard to enforce vs how well it was enforced before Obama started making it hard?

No contradiction, they ARE doing it, it HAS been difficult considering the President is trying to ax it. It was being enforced and continues to be, there have been many days I'll turn on the evening news and they will have found employers who have knowingly hired illegals. They would have been able to further enforce this at a much more effective level, hopefully punishing the homeowner that picks them up from HD, had 1070 been left to stand without blocking the guts of it.

I don't recall hearing or reading anything about this in any of the discussions about 1070.When and how did Obama make it impossible to enforce the 2007 law and what was the dropoff in enforcement?

 

[scoobygang]

So ultimately the hypothetic harm to Arizona only matters when the judge is determining whether to force a state to hold off on implementing its questionable law, not (at least in this case) as to whether it matters if the law is unconstitutional.

Yes. The limits of a state's sovereignty are established by the Constitution. States could conceivably protect the interests of their citizens (and avoid "harm") in all kinds of unconstitutional ways. They could establish foreign intelligence services and conduct black ops against Al Qaeda or Mexican drug gangs. They could create a stand alone military to project Arizona's power overseas. They could put tariffs on foreign goods to protect jobs in Arizona. The argument that Arizona's law is consistent with federal law is a decent one. Concurrent enforcement might not be unconstitutional, but that's an argument that doesn't hinge at all on whether Arizona is being harmed by federal inaction.

 

[scoobygang]

Because you can see with a simple search that it hasn't been halted, but challenged. Here is the brief http://www.globalimmigrationcounsel.com/up...cusBrief(1).pdf

Basically the law is "too tough" on employers.

Maybe I took your two word questions as snarky and responded that way, if I was mistaken I apologize.

That's an Amicus brief from the government. Which means the government isn't challenging it. The government is just offering an opinion on how the Court should rule. The Chamber of Commerce is challenging it.

 

[Card Trader]

Because you can see with a simple search that it hasn't been halted, but challenged. Here is the brief http://www.globalimmigrationcounsel.com/up...cusBrief(1).pdf

Basically the law is "too tough" on employers.

Maybe I took your two word questions as snarky and responded that way, if I was mistaken I apologize.

That's an Amicus brief from the government. Which means the government isn't challenging it. The government is just offering an opinion on how the Court should rule. The Chamber of Commerce is challenging it.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. I figured it was challenged based on this: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R3CQ20100628

 

[bigbottom]

How so?

http://www.google.com

The Obama administration halted enforcement of the law you just linked for me?

edit: I see your reference to the administration challenging that bill as well. My understanding was that the current injunction didn't apply to any of the employer provisions. Is that not the case?

p.s. You give Arch Stanton crap up above about commenting on something you say he knows little about. You're obviously up to speed on the issues. So when I ask a question, why the snarky google link?

Because you can see with a simple search that it hasn't been halted, but challenged. Here is the brief http://www.globalimmigrationcounsel.com/up...cusBrief(1).pdfBasically the law is "too tough" on employers.

Maybe I took your two word questions as snarky and responded that way, if I was mistaken I apologize.

He said the administration had put a stop to the crackdown on employers. I simply asked "how so?", because it was my understanding that the injunction didn't impact the employer provisions. I figured he knew something I didn't, which is why I asked. Not sure why you would consider that to be snarky.

 

[Card Trader]

He said the administration had put a stop to the crackdown on employers. I simply asked "how so?", because it was my understanding that the injunction didn't impact the employer provisions. I figured he knew something I didn't, which is why I asked. Not sure why you would consider that to be snarky.

Yeah, my bad. I apologize.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think you guys are correct that the net effect is negative, as the CBO data concludes.

Native-born citizens have a positive effect on the overall economy and a negative effect on government budgets. It wouldn't be surprising at all if the same were true of illegal immigrants.

 

[Arch Stanton]

You're reading into it what you want to. I never touched on the illegals' actions because I was trying to point out the disparity in venom spewed between them and the ones that hire them.

Your last post seems to be a bit of a contradiction from the bolded above. Either they actually are cracking down and continuing to do so or it's almost impossible for them to do that. Which is it? And how is Obama making it hard to enforce vs how well it was enforced before Obama started making it hard?

No contradiction, they ARE doing it, it HAS been difficult considering the President is trying to ax it. It was being enforced and continues to be, there have been many days I'll turn on the evening news and they will have found employers who have knowingly hired illegals. They would have been able to further enforce this at a much more effective level, hopefully punishing the homeowner that picks them up from HD, had 1070 been left to stand without blocking the guts of it.

I don't recall hearing or reading anything about this in any of the discussions about 1070.When and how did Obama make it impossible to enforce the 2007 law and what was the dropoff in enforcement?

Also, why isn't sheriff Joe ignoring Fed mandates on that law as he plans to on 1070?

 

[bueno]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Those days are long since gone. You can tell the slant of the article from the opening words- only Minutemen and their sympathizers regard Mexican gang activity as "an act of war" against the United States. A real act of war is of course, by the government of another state.Anyhow, the initial important decision on this law should come down this week. I'm pretty confident it will be stayed. That's going to make a lot of conservatives very angry I suspect. Stay tuned.

Sorry, 9/11 was an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

 

[urbanhack]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Those days are long since gone. You can tell the slant of the article from the opening words- only Minutemen and their sympathizers regard Mexican gang activity as "an act of war" against the United States. A real act of war is of course, by the government of another state.Anyhow, the initial important decision on this law should come down this week. I'm pretty confident it will be stayed. That's going to make a lot of conservatives very angry I suspect. Stay tuned.

Sorry, 9/11 was an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

Which country attacked us? Saudi Arabia?

 

[Arch Stanton]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Those days are long since gone. You can tell the slant of the article from the opening words- only Minutemen and their sympathizers regard Mexican gang activity as "an act of war" against the United States. A real act of war is of course, by the government of another state.Anyhow, the initial important decision on this law should come down this week. I'm pretty confident it will be stayed. That's going to make a lot of conservatives very angry I suspect. Stay tuned.

Sorry, 9/11 was an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

Which country attacked us? Saudi Arabia?

No, it was the people who conservatives are now railing on Obama for continuing to fight after their boy got distracted by a shiny new toy in Iraq.

 

[bueno]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Those days are long since gone. You can tell the slant of the article from the opening words- only Minutemen and their sympathizers regard Mexican gang activity as "an act of war" against the United States. A real act of war is of course, by the government of another state.Anyhow, the initial important decision on this law should come down this week. I'm pretty confident it will be stayed. That's going to make a lot of conservatives very angry I suspect. Stay tuned.

Sorry, 9/11 was an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

Which country attacked us? Saudi Arabia?

No, it was the people who conservatives are now railing on Obama for continuing to fight after their boy got distracted by a shiny new toy in Iraq.

Which conservatives are that exactly? Afghanistan is the only thing this guy has gotten close to right.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Those days are long since gone. You can tell the slant of the article from the opening words- only Minutemen and their sympathizers regard Mexican gang activity as "an act of war" against the United States. A real act of war is of course, by the government of another state.Anyhow, the initial important decision on this law should come down this week. I'm pretty confident it will be stayed. That's going to make a lot of conservatives very angry I suspect. Stay tuned.

Sorry, 9/11 was an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

Which country attacked us? Saudi Arabia?

No, it was the people who conservatives are now railing on Obama for continuing to fight after their boy got distracted by a shiny new toy in Iraq.

Which conservatives are that exactly? Afghanistan is the only thing this guy has gotten close to right.

Apparently not you, but many on this board.

 

[bueno]

Sorry, 9/11 was an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

Which country attacked us? Saudi Arabia?

No, it was the people who conservatives are now railing on Obama for continuing to fight after their boy got distracted by a shiny new toy in Iraq.

Which conservatives are that exactly? Afghanistan is the only thing this guy has gotten close to right.

Apparently not you, but many on this board.

Well maybe you should learn to generalize less.....

 

[Arch Stanton]

Which country attacked us? Saudi Arabia?

No, it was the people who conservatives are now railing on Obama for continuing to fight after their boy got distracted by a shiny new toy in Iraq.

Which conservatives are that exactly? Afghanistan is the only thing this guy has gotten close to right.

Apparently not you, but many on this board.

Well maybe you should learn to generalize less.....

It wasn't a generalization, it was a pluralization. It means 'more than one'. Conservatives (plural) are railing against it. I didn't say all conservatives (since all conservatives dont agree on anything as a whole) nor did I say some. I could have been more specific, because the reading comprehension of some conservatives is questionable, but then you'd have to find something else I didn't actually say to get all outraged about. Maybe you should read what you want to read into things so you can get all up in a bunch less. At least you haven't turned it into an attack against Christianity. Yet. And I already know which comprehension deficit manufactured offense you're going to take from this post. Let's see if I'm right.

 

[Statorama]

Sorry, 9/11 was an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

Which country attacked us? Saudi Arabia?

No, it was the people who conservatives are now railing on Obama for continuing to fight after their boy got distracted by a shiny new toy in Iraq.

Which conservatives are that exactly? Afghanistan is the only thing this guy has gotten close to right.

Apparently not you, but many on this board.

I'm only outraged by the way Obama has tied the hands of the military in Afghanistan. If he would have allowed them the freedom to "win", we would have.Bush did that in Iraq and we destroyed their "military" in 2 weeks.

 

[Christo]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Those days are long since gone. You can tell the slant of the article from the opening words- only Minutemen and their sympathizers regard Mexican gang activity as "an act of war" against the United States. A real act of war is of course, by the government of another state.Anyhow, the initial important decision on this law should come down this week. I'm pretty confident it will be stayed. That's going to make a lot of conservatives very angry I suspect. Stay tuned.

Sorry, 9/11 was an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

Which country attacked us? Saudi Arabia?

timmy was wrong. War doesn't require the combatants to be states. And that doesn't change simply because he said "real act of war." Any one of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah (or even the IRA at one time) are large enough, organized enough, powerful enough and have enough reach for countries to be "at war" with them. It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels fall into that category.

 

[oneohh]

Well maybe you should learn to generalize less.....

It wasn't a generalization, it was a pluralization. It means 'more than one'. Conservatives (plural) are railing against it. I didn't say all conservatives (since all conservatives dont agree on anything as a whole) nor did I say some. I could have been more specific, because the reading comprehension of some conservatives is questionable, but then you'd have to find something else I didn't actually say to get all outraged about. Maybe you should read what you want to read into things so you can get all up in a bunch less. At least you haven't turned it into an attack against Christianity. Yet. And I already know which comprehension deficit manufactured offense you're going to take from this post. Let's see if I'm right.

This never gets old.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Well maybe you should learn to generalize less.....

It wasn't a generalization, it was a pluralization. It means 'more than one'. Conservatives (plural) are railing against it. I didn't say all conservatives (since all conservatives dont agree on anything as a whole) nor did I say some. I could have been more specific, because the reading comprehension of some conservatives is questionable, but then you'd have to find something else I didn't actually say to get all outraged about. Maybe you should read what you want to read into things so you can get all up in a bunch less. At least you haven't turned it into an attack against Christianity. Yet. And I already know which comprehension deficit manufactured offense you're going to take from this post. Let's see if I'm right.

This never gets old.

Neither does your categorical lack of comprehension and worthwhile participation.

I'm not sure where it was thought that this was constructive to the thread but it isn't....

 

[timschochet]

timmy was wrong. War doesn't require the combatants to be states. And that doesn't change simply because he said "real act of war." Any one of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah (or even the IRA at one time) are large enough, organized enough, powerful enough and have enough reach for countries to be "at war" with them. It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels fall into that category.

No it isn't. And no I'm not wrong either. There is no such thing, in actuality, as a "war on terror", anymore than there is a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty." These phrases are meaningless, used to create large government programs which never have achieved their goals and never will. We are not at war with al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group; their members do not deserve the distinction of military combatants. They are common criminals who deserve to be brought to justice or simply eliminated. Same with the drug cartels.

But the rhetoric that the nativists use goes even far beyond this. We are told that America is facing an "invasion" on our southern borders, as if Mexico was pulling a Normandy and sending its military to conquer us, ala Red Dawn. It's absurd, and I can't believe thoughtful people are actually buying this.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

timmy was wrong. War doesn't require the combatants to be states. And that doesn't change simply because he said "real act of war." Any one of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah (or even the IRA at one time) are large enough, organized enough, powerful enough and have enough reach for countries to be "at war" with them. It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels fall into that category.

No it isn't. And no I'm not wrong either. There is no such thing, in actuality, as a "war on terror", anymore than there is a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty." These phrases are meaningless, used to create large government programs which never have achieved their goals and never will. We are not at war with al-Qaeda.

You are factually and legally wrong.

 

[videoguy505]

timmy was wrong. War doesn't require the combatants to be states. And that doesn't change simply because he said "real act of war." Any one of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah (or even the IRA at one time) are large enough, organized enough, powerful enough and have enough reach for countries to be "at war" with them. It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels fall into that category.

No it isn't. And no I'm not wrong either. There is no such thing, in actuality, as a "war on terror", anymore than there is a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty." These phrases are meaningless, used to create large government programs which never have achieved their goals and never will. We are not at war with al-Qaeda.

You are factually and legally wrong.

Never stopped him before.

 

[timschochet]

timmy was wrong. War doesn't require the combatants to be states. And that doesn't change simply because he said "real act of war." Any one of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah (or even the IRA at one time) are large enough, organized enough, powerful enough and have enough reach for countries to be "at war" with them. It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels fall into that category.

No it isn't. And no I'm not wrong either. There is no such thing, in actuality, as a "war on terror", anymore than there is a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty." These phrases are meaningless, used to create large government programs which never have achieved their goals and never will. We are not at war with al-Qaeda.

You are factually and legally wrong.

Never stopped him before.

Damn right! And anyhow, I'm not wrong, whatever the law says. If the law contradicts me then the law is wrong. So there.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

timmy was wrong. War doesn't require the combatants to be states. And that doesn't change simply because he said "real act of war." Any one of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah (or even the IRA at one time) are large enough, organized enough, powerful enough and have enough reach for countries to be "at war" with them. It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels fall into that category.

No it isn't. And no I'm not wrong either. There is no such thing, in actuality, as a "war on terror", anymore than there is a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty." These phrases are meaningless, used to create large government programs which never have achieved their goals and never will. We are not at war with al-Qaeda.

You are factually and legally wrong.

Never stopped him before.

Damn right! And anyhow, I'm not wrong, whatever the law says. If the law contradicts me then the law is wrong. So there.

Fair enough.

 

[videoguy505]

timmy was wrong. War doesn't require the combatants to be states. And that doesn't change simply because he said "real act of war." Any one of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah (or even the IRA at one time) are large enough, organized enough, powerful enough and have enough reach for countries to be "at war" with them. It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels fall into that category.

No it isn't. And no I'm not wrong either. There is no such thing, in actuality, as a "war on terror", anymore than there is a "war on drugs" or a "war on poverty." These phrases are meaningless, used to create large government programs which never have achieved their goals and never will. We are not at war with al-Qaeda.

You are factually and legally wrong.

Never stopped him before.

Damn right! And anyhow, I'm not wrong, whatever the law says. If the law contradicts me then the law is wrong.

So there.

Little history lesson: at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the economic threats to the country was piracy from the Barbary Corsairs. The Constitution specifically authorizes military action against pirates. Jefferson & Congress declared war against them in 1801, and Madison did again in 1815.

 

[B-Deep]

Little history lesson: at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the economic threats to the country was piracy from the Barbary Corsairs. The Constitution specifically authorizes military action against pirates. Jefferson & Congress declared war against them in 1801, and Madison did again in 1815.

and then we paid them off right?god bless the founding fathers giving in to terrorism

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Little history lesson: at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the economic threats to the country was piracy from the Barbary Corsairs. The Constitution specifically authorizes military action against pirates. Jefferson & Congress declared war against them in 1801, and Madison did again in 1815.

Did congress formally declare war? What defines a war in this context? (I'm not trying to be the picky one just trying to figure out what it means for Timmy to be "legally wrong" and/or "factually wrong". In other words I'm used to the lawyers being narrow and nit picky.)

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Little history lesson: at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the economic threats to the country was piracy from the Barbary Corsairs. The Constitution specifically authorizes military action against pirates. Jefferson & Congress declared war against them in 1801, and Madison did again in 1815.

Did congress formally declare war? What defines a war in this context? (I'm not trying to be the picky one just trying to figure out what it means for Timmy to be "legally wrong" and/or "factually wrong". In other words I'm used to the lawyers being narrow and nit picky.)

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Little history lesson: at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the economic threats to the country was piracy from the Barbary Corsairs. The Constitution specifically authorizes military action against pirates. Jefferson & Congress declared war against them in 1801, and Madison did again in 1815.

Did congress formally declare war? What defines a war in this context? (I'm not trying to be the picky one just trying to figure out what it means for Timmy to be "legally wrong" and/or "factually wrong". In other words I'm used to the lawyers being narrow and nit picky.)

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

I'm asking in legal terms what makes a war a war? Just the label used by the masses? In other words does the word "war" have any legally specific meaning?

 

[timschochet]

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

I thought that, legally speaking, we were at war during World War II because we declared war on December 8, 1941. Since there were no declarations of war for Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, none of those conflicts are wars in legal terms. (Neither was the Civil War; that was a police action as well.) Is this correct?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Little history lesson: at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the economic threats to the country was piracy from the Barbary Corsairs. The Constitution specifically authorizes military action against pirates. Jefferson & Congress declared war against them in 1801, and Madison did again in 1815.

Did congress formally declare war? What defines a war in this context? (I'm not trying to be the picky one just trying to figure out what it means for Timmy to be "legally wrong" and/or "factually wrong". In other words I'm used to the lawyers being narrow and nit picky.)

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

I'm asking in legal terms what makes a war a war? Just the label used by the masses? In other words does the word "war" have any legally specific meaning?

Congress authorizing the use of military force for the executive.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

I thought that, legally speaking, we were at war during World War II because we declared war on December 8, 1941. Since there were no declarations of war for Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, none of those conflicts are wars in legal terms. (Neither was the Civil War; that was a police action as well.) Is this correct?

No, it's not correct.The Korean War was a UN action. The initial military involvment of the United States was under the guise of the UN Charter. However, Truman eventually did go to Congress and was authorized to use military force The Vietnam War started in a similar fashion with Congress eventually approving the use of military force. The authorizing resolution for Iraq and Afghanistan is likely the same one published as Public Law 107-40 :

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That same authorization also codifies the War Powers Act language necessary to give the President the authorization.

Any one of these acts is all the Executive needs under the Constitution. We may call different military engagements different names for political expediency (and we do) using such phrases as war, police action, invasion, supply support, etc etc. But in the end, all the Constitution requires is Congress to approve the use of force. No matter what you want to title those authorizations, they are declarations of war for Constitutional purposes.

 

[otello]

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

I thought that, legally speaking, we were at war during World War II because we declared war on December 8, 1941. Since there were no declarations of war for Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, none of those conflicts are wars in legal terms. (Neither was the Civil War; that was a police action as well.) Is this correct?

No, it's not correct.The Korean War was a UN action. The initial military involvment of the United States was under the guise of the UN Charter. However, Truman eventually did go to Congress and was authorized to use military force The Vietnam War started in a similar fashion with Congress eventually approving the use of military force. The authorizing resolution for Iraq and Afghanistan is likely the same one published as Public Law 107-40 :

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That same authorization also codifies the War Powers Act language necessary to give the President the authorization.

Any one of these acts is all the Executive needs under the Constitution. We may call different military engagements different names for political expediency (and we do) using such phrases as war, police action, invasion, supply support, etc etc. But in the end, all the Constitution requires is Congress to approve the use of force. No matter what you want to title those authorizations, they are declarations of war for Constitutional purposes.

In point of fact, Congress has only formally declared war five times (1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, WWI and WWII).

 

[timschochet]

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

I thought that, legally speaking, we were at war during World War II because we declared war on December 8, 1941. Since there were no declarations of war for Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, none of those conflicts are wars in legal terms. (Neither was the Civil War; that was a police action as well.) Is this correct?

No, it's not correct.The Korean War was a UN action. The initial military involvment of the United States was under the guise of the UN Charter. However, Truman eventually did go to Congress and was authorized to use military force The Vietnam War started in a similar fashion with Congress eventually approving the use of military force. The authorizing resolution for Iraq and Afghanistan is likely the same one published as Public Law 107-40 :

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That same authorization also codifies the War Powers Act language necessary to give the President the authorization.

Any one of these acts is all the Executive needs under the Constitution. We may call different military engagements different names for political expediency (and we do) using such phrases as war, police action, invasion, supply support, etc etc. But in the end, all the Constitution requires is Congress to approve the use of force. No matter what you want to title those authorizations, they are declarations of war for Constitutional purposes.

We're really hijacking the thread here, but I'm forced to ask: how does that law justify the use of force in Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled on Wednesday that key provisions of Arizona's new anti-immigration law were unconstitutional, she could have also declared them unnecessary. That is, if the main impetus behind the controversial legislation was, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said when she signed it in April, "border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration." The fact is, despite the murderous mayhem raging across the border in Mexico, the U.S. side, from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, is one of the nation's safest corridors.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...s#ixzz0vCsl3RUB

 

[Neofight]

When U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled on Wednesday that key provisions of Arizona's new anti-immigration law were unconstitutional, she could have also declared them unnecessary. That is, if the main impetus behind the controversial legislation was, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said when she signed it in April, "border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration." The fact is, despite the murderous mayhem raging across the border in Mexico, the U.S. side, from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, is one of the nation's safest corridors.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...s#ixzz0vCsl3RUB

Did LHUCKS authorize this?Oh well, there's always the chance for more fabricated stories of drug cartels taking over a border town near you and/or your loved ones.

 

[jonessed]

When U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled on Wednesday that key provisions of Arizona's new anti-immigration law were unconstitutional, she could have also declared them unnecessary. That is, if the main impetus behind the controversial legislation was, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said when she signed it in April, "border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration." The fact is, despite the murderous mayhem raging across the border in Mexico, the U.S. side, from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, is one of the nation's safest corridors.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...s#ixzz0vCsl3RUB

Arizona as a state has a pretty high crime rate. That would seem a more accurate measure of the validity of Brewer's statement than statistics from cherry-picked urban centers in various states along the border.

 

[Christo]

Little history lesson: at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the economic threats to the country was piracy from the Barbary Corsairs. The Constitution specifically authorizes military action against pirates. Jefferson & Congress declared war against them in 1801, and Madison did again in 1815.

Did congress formally declare war? What defines a war in this context? (I'm not trying to be the picky one just trying to figure out what it means for Timmy to be "legally wrong" and/or "factually wrong". In other words I'm used to the lawyers being narrow and nit picky.)

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

I'm asking in legal terms what makes a war a war? Just the label used by the masses? In other words does the word "war" have any legally specific meaning?

As far as I know there is no legal definition of war.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Little history lesson: at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the economic threats to the country was piracy from the Barbary Corsairs. The Constitution specifically authorizes military action against pirates. Jefferson & Congress declared war against them in 1801, and Madison did again in 1815.

Did congress formally declare war? What defines a war in this context? (I'm not trying to be the picky one just trying to figure out what it means for Timmy to be "legally wrong" and/or "factually wrong". In other words I'm used to the lawyers being narrow and nit picky.)

A formal declaration of war as some document that stands on its own entitled, Formal Declaration of War, has never been necessary nor constitutionally required. It was a practice already out of practice when the Constitution was written and Hamilton discusses that in The Federalist Papers. Congress enabling the executive to use force or ordering him to do so is all that is required. In that, the war we are currently fighting was in fact legally enabled by Congress through authorizing law.

I'm asking in legal terms what makes a war a war? Just the label used by the masses? In other words does the word "war" have any legally specific meaning?

As far as I know there is no legal definition of war.

Three cards face-down and a fourth card face-up?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled on Wednesday that key provisions of Arizona's new anti-immigration law were unconstitutional, she could have also declared them unnecessary. That is, if the main impetus behind the controversial legislation was, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said when she signed it in April, "border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration." The fact is, despite the murderous mayhem raging across the border in Mexico, the U.S. side, from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, is one of the nation's safest corridors.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...s#ixzz0vCsl3RUB

Arizona as a state has a pretty high crime rate. That would seem a more accurate measure of the validity of Brewer's statement than statistics from cherry-picked urban centers in various states along the border.

No Arizona does not have a high crime rate. First of thousands of links that say the same thing.

 

[Gopher State]

AZ does have a high crime rate when look at states like ND, SD.

 

[jonessed]

When U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled on Wednesday that key provisions of Arizona's new anti-immigration law were unconstitutional, she could have also declared them unnecessary. That is, if the main impetus behind the controversial legislation was, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said when she signed it in April, "border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration." The fact is, despite the murderous mayhem raging across the border in Mexico, the U.S. side, from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, is one of the nation's safest corridors.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...s#ixzz0vCsl3RUB

Arizona as a state has a pretty high crime rate. That would seem a more accurate measure of the validity of Brewer's statement than statistics from cherry-picked urban centers in various states along the border.

No Arizona does not have a high crime rate. First of thousands of links that say the same thing.

It doesn't reference crime rates. It references changes in crime rates. Crime has been going down across the US and AZ's crime has been going down as well. That doesn't mean it doesn't have high crime.The FBI generally doesn't like people ranking its data by state, but CQ Press publications uses the basis of the FBI's previous ranking system and it puts AZ at 9th.

Don't waste my time with blogs that say crap like "Meanwhile, important information about crime in Arizona and other border states — info that directly contradicts the hysterical rants coming from teabagger world". I don't care if you find 10,000 such links, they are worthless. If you can find a legitimate state ranking that puts AZ in a low crime category I would like to see it. AZ has had crime rates for some time now, especially burglary and grand theft. If it isn't still the car theft capital of the nation I imagine it's pretty close.

 

[timschochet]

"Meanwhile, important information about crime in Arizona and other border states — info that directly contradicts the hysterical rants coming from teabagger world".

This. It's the only part of your post that you got right.