Its obvious you're unaware of the controversy surrounding the Arizona Immigration Law. I am very aware of the so-called controversy surrounding the Arizona law. Being a student of Constitutional Law, I do not see how the Arizona law violates the Constitution. Arizona SB 1070 was well within the bounds of the Constitution as the only thing SB 1070 did was give the State the power to enforce Federal Law that was already on the books that the Federal Government was failing to enforce.
As Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states (otherwise knowns as the Supremacy Clause) states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
Therefore, since the United States has a treaty with Mexico that defines our Southern border between the two sovereign nations, the United States of America has the right to police her borders. This is true on both a Federal and a State level. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please note that nowhere does the US Constitution construct such entities as the FBI or the CIA. In fact, both of those entities are 20th century byproducts. It was NEVER conceived that Federal criminals could not be apprehended by local law enforcement. This idea that Federal Law trumps all is modern invention of the Democrat party to pre-empt Nullification, a process that Thomas Jefferson STRONGLY defended and used himself. Why bring up Jefferson? Because he was the mentor of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and Madison and Jefferson agreed on this issue, hence the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 respectively–nullification laws.
So I have made a Constitutional case for Arizona SB 1070. As stated earlier, the only possible reasons for this law being un-Constitutional is if driver's licenses and vehicle taxes (otherwise known as car tags) are illegal. Both driver's licenses and car tags are State laws and thus State issues; requiring to produce documentation, therefore, can either be construed at a Fourth or Fifth Amendment argument.
I do not believe that it is a Fourth Amendment argument given that there is probable cause for the traffic stop in the form of a violation of an existing Arizona traffic law or city or county ordinance. The question then becomes, is it self-incriminating to produce documentation in any circumstance and therefore a violation of the Fifth Amendment? That question is left for greeter minds than mine. I lean towards yes, but if having to produce documentation is a violation of Fifth Amendment rights, then driver's licenses and vehicle taxes are therefore un-Constitutional and therefore illegal.
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply here because SB 1070 does not require any one group of people to do anything that any other group of people is required by law to do, ergo there is equal protection.
Please cite your Constitutional reasons for the un-Constitutionality of SB 1070.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ninetydegrees
(no subject)
I am very aware of the so-called controversy surrounding the Arizona law. Being a student of Constitutional Law, I do not see how the Arizona law violates the Constitution. Arizona SB 1070 was well within the bounds of the Constitution as the only thing SB 1070 did was give the State the power to enforce Federal Law that was already on the books that the Federal Government was failing to enforce.
As Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states (otherwise knowns as the Supremacy Clause) states:
Therefore, since the United States has a treaty with Mexico that defines our Southern border between the two sovereign nations, the United States of America has the right to police her borders. This is true on both a Federal and a State level. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
Please note that nowhere does the US Constitution construct such entities as the FBI or the CIA. In fact, both of those entities are 20th century byproducts. It was NEVER conceived that Federal criminals could not be apprehended by local law enforcement. This idea that Federal Law trumps all is modern invention of the Democrat party to pre-empt Nullification, a process that Thomas Jefferson STRONGLY defended and used himself. Why bring up Jefferson? Because he was the mentor of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and Madison and Jefferson agreed on this issue, hence the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 respectively–nullification laws.
So I have made a Constitutional case for Arizona SB 1070. As stated earlier, the only possible reasons for this law being un-Constitutional is if driver's licenses and vehicle taxes (otherwise known as car tags) are illegal. Both driver's licenses and car tags are State laws and thus State issues; requiring to produce documentation, therefore, can either be construed at a Fourth or Fifth Amendment argument.
I do not believe that it is a Fourth Amendment argument given that there is probable cause for the traffic stop in the form of a violation of an existing Arizona traffic law or city or county ordinance. The question then becomes, is it self-incriminating to produce documentation in any circumstance and therefore a violation of the Fifth Amendment? That question is left for greeter minds than mine. I lean towards yes, but if having to produce documentation is a violation of Fifth Amendment rights, then driver's licenses and vehicle taxes are therefore un-Constitutional and therefore illegal.
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply here because SB 1070 does not require any one group of people to do anything that any other group of people is required by law to do, ergo there is equal protection.
Please cite your Constitutional reasons for the un-Constitutionality of SB 1070.