Darleen earlier raised the issue of the potential for abuses in Arizona’s (locally popular) border enforcement law, and Reason’s Steve Chapman expands on concerns from a libertarian perspective:
The worst-case scenario is that Hispanics will face possible police harassment anytime they venture out of the house. Not to worry, says Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who helped draft the text.
He told The Washington Examiner that cops can ask for immigration information only when they have “lawful contact” with someone—when “the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law.”
In fact, the law doesn’t define the crucial term. One of the dictionary definitions of “contact” is “immediate proximity,” which suggests that anytime a possible illegal immigrant comes in sight of a cop, the cop has a legal duty to check her papers.
Law professor Miller says “lawful contact” could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him—something police are allowed to do—he may have established “lawful contact.”
But let’s suppose a cop can get nosy only if he has already intercepted someone for, say, a traffic violation. That’s cold comfort for the innocent. Any officer who wants to make a stop can easily come up with some trivial transgression—improper lane change, going 1 mph over the speed limit, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.
When I went to traffic school years ago, the officer teaching it strongly advised us never to argue when being issued a ticket. On the average car, he said, he could find half a dozen reasons to write up additional citations if provoked. Any of those would serve equally well to justify a stop.
Of course, even if they have reason to pull someone over, police are not supposed to demand documents unless they have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is here illegally. But—aside from instances of guys hiding in trunks—what does that mean if it doesn’t mean checking anyone who looks or sounds Latino? Illegal immigrants don’t normally wear shirts that say “Fence Jumpers Local 302.”
Given that even the governor doesn’t know what an illegal immigrant looks like, police may often have trouble articulating a reason for interrogating someone. In that case, the law may be largely irrelevant. If the most obvious grounds for reasonable suspicion are race-based—and thus illegal—cops may elect to do nothing more often than not.
The questions over the breadth of “lawful contact” as is it practiced by law enforcement — and how that jibes with what is ostensibly the intent of the law — is, at least abstractly, an interesting one; too, Chapman’s argument that if, despite protestations (and legal insistences) to the contrary, the ultimate gauge for determining who to question redounds either to skin tone or to an inability on the part of someone engaged by “lawful contact” to communicate in English, the case can potentially be made that race is the deciding factor, and that the law amounts to legalized racial profiling. And many law enforcement officers could decide that, rather than open themselves up to civil rights abuse suits, they’d rather simply not bother attempting to enforce the new law. (Another interesting question here is if an inability to communicate in English can be construed as a “racial” indicator in the first place. But let’s not complicate things unnecessarily just yet.)
It’s hardly surprising that a certain flavor of libertarian would take such a position as the one Chapman takes; libertarians have a natural distrust of law enforcement, and such a distrust of authority, when tempered by a recognition of the necessity of such law enforcement organizations, creates the kind of tension that is necessary for balancing liberty with the rule of law that allows liberty to survive and thrive.
Of course, other strains of libertarianism / classical liberalism / federalism don’t really see Arizona’s law as problematic, so long as Arizona, in enforcing the law, doesn’t violate civil rights as a matter of law. After all, this is an Arizonan law, the argument goes, and Arizonans know best how to deal with the problems of law breakers in their state — particularly when the federal government refuses to enforce laws already on the books.
For instance, federal law enforcement can demand legal immigrants produce their green cards; and so Arizona is merely, to their way of thinking, broadening the scope of who can enforce laws.
In other words, is illegal immigration solely an issue for federal law enforcement? Should local law enforcement refuse to enforce punishments for federal crimes not under their purview?
Here is how one law enforcement officer visiting Reason’s comment section answered the concerns of those libertarians less inclined to view law enforcement as, on the whole, good:
This article ignorantly perpetuates more disinformation of the new Arizona law (and intentionally so). I was a federal law enforcement officer for 13 years; and nothing, repeat nothing, in this Arizona law is novel, or provocative, or overly injurious to our civil liberties. Also, as emotions run wild, and as ideological predispositions rule the day, it’s funny (sad) to see just how little the ‘average person’ knows about the rudimentary process of law enforcement. (Hell, I’m no plumber, but at least I don’t go around spreading lies about plumbing.) So, let’s knock down three primary, bullshit strawmen right now. To Wit:
(1) Lawful Contact: Yes, ‘lawful contact’ is intentionally broad and can mean a lot of things–including both a traffic stop, AND a scenario where someone willfully approaches a cop. If I’m drunk in public, and I walk up to a cop and ask him for directions, the cop may suspect I’m drunk, and my dumb ass may go to jail. (It’s been this way for time immemorial.) Ultimately, in each prosecution/deportation case under the Arizona law, a judge will determine if lawful contact was established; this will be a prerequisite before any case can proceed. (I’ll likewise bet that judges will adopt a very strict standard.)
(2) Reasonable Suspicion: Again, if you don’t know that this extremely robust legal definition/phenomenon existed well before you were born, you are willfully ignorant. We are all subject to ‘reasonable suspicion’ by law enforcement every day of our lives. Take the scenario where my public, drunk ass walked up to a cop and asked for directions. First, it’s important to know that reasonable suspicion is established by a ‘totality of circumstances’; meaning, one piece of evidence in isolation is almost always useless. So, what does this evil cop have to do to take me to jail (because that’s what cops love to do–harass and torture the citizenry). Well, he’ll likely need to convince a jury that he thought I was drunk for a few reasons: I was slurring my words; I reeked of booze; I was disoriented; I couldn’t remember where I lived; my pupils were dilated; my skin was flush; my equilibrium or coordination was off; I just vomited in the street; my clothes were disheveled; I exhibited both emotional euphoria and sadness; etc. Now, all these things would definitely convince a jury of public drunkenness; only one of them would be wholly insufficient. Just as under the Arizona law, race alone as suspicion, will be wholly insufficient.
For fun, let’s play a ‘reasonable suspicion’ game with immigration status as the subject matter. (In school, law enforcement actually does role playing to learn this vital technique). Let’s pretend I’m white, and am an illegal immigrant living in Germany. How will German law enforcement, after a legal traffic stop, reasonably determine that I am in Germany illegally? Well, let’s pose some simple questions: do I have a German ID, or library card, or recent piece of local mail; do I speak good German; do I look German (actually I do); can I recall where I live and work in Germany; can I recall specifically where I’m going; do I know and can I describe the town in which I was stopped; where do my kids go to school; where did I go to school; did I just open my wallet and accidentally reveal a U.S. driver’s license; are there other people in the car who can vouch for me as being German; can I get someone on the cell phone who can vouch for me or assist the situation in any way; am I dressed like a German, or am I wearing my California flip flops and Ocean Pacific shorts; do I have an L.A. Lakers bumper sticker on my car; is my car registered to me, at an address in Germany; etc. Any one of this things, in isolation, is ridiculously useless in proving immigration status; but, taken as an ensemble, I bet those cops will figure out that I’m from southern California. And I bet this can all be done in 10 minutes or less.
(3) Concurrent Jurisdiction: Some seem to believe that local law enforcement shouldn’t enforce federal immigration law. I call these people ignorant anarchists. It’s not a state crime to counterfeit U.S. dollars, nor is it a state crime to import in the trunk of your Honda radioactive fissile material from Canada. These are both violations of U.S. federal statute. Would you want local law enforcement to look away, when they reasonably discover such activity? Also, we have allowed California to pass industrial CO2 emissions laws; how in the world should states be allowed to enact their own CO2 laws, thus preempting the federal government in both method and treaty? Well, because fighting CO2 pollution is en vogue; enforcing existing federal immigration law is not en vogue–at least amongst the political elite.
My own opinion is that Darleen was right to express concern over the language of the law; but that ultimately, it is up to the people of Arizona to decide on what laws they’d like available to protect their liberties, provided those laws don’t violate Constitutional rights.
From my vantage point, there is nothing I read as inherent to the law that, on its face, creates a Constitutional problem — though I can see some court broadening what comes to count as a “civil rights” violation in order to constrain the power of a state like Arizona from protecting itself and its borders (with the “racial” being the most likely recourse opponents of the law will seize upon to undercut it).
For libertarians / classical liberals, there is — as always — a tension between state’s rights and what we come to see as fundamental liberties, even those not enumerated (and so not, at least legally-speaking, “fundamental” in the strictest sense). Which is why though you will find many libertarians on the side of the majority in Lawrence v. Texas; people like me could be found on the dissenting side — not because we are anti-gay or any other such nonsense; but rather because, following the legal reasoning of Justice Thomas, we see no general right to privacy in the Constitution, and would rather the Texas legislature have done away with the law as a function of public scorn and outrage. As a classical liberal, I am a legal conservative / libertarian. Many self-described libertarians (and conservatives, for that matter), conversely, are legal activists, especially when the Constitution doesn’t suit their purposes.
Chapman argues, in his Reason piece, that “police may not do their jobs much differently from before,” and that therefore the law may be more a “hoax” than a “menace.” And yet already, the Arizona law has illegals set to flee Arizona, and is likely persuading border crossers to try elsewhere, where such a law doesn’t exist.
Which means that, in that limited sense, the law has already worked. At least as a kind of deterrent.
How effective it might prove in the long run — particularly after it is dragged through the courts and tethered to all sort of PC-conditions — remains to be seen.
I stand wif Darleen.
Seems far less OT in this thread:
or the little president man maybe wants to have the issue more top of mind come 2012… he said what he wanted… he said what he needs…
and he needs hispanics galvanized… in 2012.
Not now.
I’ll admit, that’s another clear possibility.
I agree with the federal law enforcement guy who commented in Reason. This is simply allowing AZ law enforcement agencies to, um, enforce the law. Somehow allowing a State to enforce already existing Federal law is a threat to the fabric of the Republic?
Barone thinks they’re banking on the wrong issue, the obamas.
I agree. “RACIST!!!” is so played.
Except that they’re going to demand a driver’s license, which immediately rebuts any suspicion that one is here illegally. The end, unless you don’t have one, which leaves you with several problems and racism ain’t one of them.
Or, it could be that folks like Harry Reid want it now (because he’s getting slaughtered in the polls and he views it as a winner based on Nevada’s demos) and Dems in other districts don’t want it ever becoming a national issue because they have only downsides in the debate.
Yeah, it’s done. Having been redefined, raped even, the term “racist” now means “I really don’t have an argument” and everyone knows it.
Thanks, Barack!
I’m sure she’ll be tickled.
The Arizona people seem to be serious to me, like this is much more than a token show of concern.
I want equal opportunity for ALL immigrants, not just the ones who can walk here. I need some Chinese guys cutting my lawn. You know, for diversity’s sake.
Darleen and I squabble but we stand together for Troof and Justices I will have you know. Buck up or stay in the truck, Pablo.
As this is sorta the “libertarian concerns” thread, here‘s Balko.
Troof, Justices and Meghan, I’ll bet. I’m gonna go get a
cupcakehorchata.Mr. Balko and Mr. P are nemesiseses
hf, I thought your stance was more based on a belief that the police in AZ were bastards who would use this as a pretext be ‘evil policetards’? Not a very Just stance, I think, as it is tarring with a state-sized brush.
horchata is tasty Pablo if you come visit we can go to Vallarta where they have the best agua fresca selection in Los Angeles my favorite one is celery but they hardly ever have it but my next favorite one is the mame sapote one and they always have that one but the banana one is good too and there are still some I haven’t tried.
Mr Kobach has his say in the NYT.
Mr Balko and 70% of Arizonans have the same issue it seems.
Are they all racists, ‘feets?
no LTC you misunderstand. I said the law’s success will be disproportionately affected by how the dumberest cops enforce it, not how the smart ones enforce it. And cops are cops. Their job is to be stupid and cruel. Also, stupid and cruel people a lot say hey I think I would like to be a cop. There are nice ones though, but even then there’s lots of times where there’s no cameras around and god only knows, really.
I haven’t had a chance to read Mr. Balko yet Pablo I have a thing to get out.
Which is why it’s sorta funny watching the all-white lineup on MSNBC chase those diminishing returns even more diligently.
At the end of the day the discomfort which will be borne by Hispanic citizens is the fault of the federal government for failing to secure the border. Equally true is that this will be small comfort to those who will, as a result of this law, have to prove their innocence.
The people of Arizona have a right to make and enforce this law, IMO, but it doesn’t make it suck any less.
I don’t understand Pablo Mr. Balko says he thinks the law is “awful.”
bh – I subjected myself to the MadCow show last night. I had to turn it off after 25 consecutive minutes of RACISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!
“And cops are cops. Their job is to be stupid and cruel. Also, stupid and cruel people a lot say hey I think I would like to be a cop. There are nice ones though, but even then there’s lots of times where there’s no cameras around and god only knows, really.”
That, now, is a Nation-sized brush. Do you honestly think the job of the police is to be stupid and cruel? What is the job of the firefighter – to be pyrophilic and gloating over disaster? What is the job of the Soldier – to be everything John Kerry every claimed?
How deep does this go, in you? I find that quite troubling, feets.
I rarely agree with Balko, ever, and apparently the streak continues.
Nationally, it’s a loser politically for Dems.
” Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can’t prove they’re in the United States legally…”
As does Mr. Obama.
Do the people of Arizona have a positive duty to refrain from hiring illegal aliens? Does anyone in the US? On the whole, I’d say no, not to the polity as such, but that every conscious act taken hiring illegal aliens will redound to the ultimate (if small) injury of the hiring party. So maybe a duty to themselves, rather than the polity as such.
If the Arizona law is struck down on civil rights grounds then surely the Federal law must be struck down alongside it. In which case, the US can no longer enforce its own borders so welcome to the Pan American Union.
Hmm… And can you really enforce any law since on that basis any law can be portrayed as discriminatory.
In Arizona you can’t even have the illegal ones in your car sdferr… you can go to jail and lose your freedoms if you have an illegal person in your car.
so, always check the trunk
“In Arizona you can’t even have the illegal ones in your car sdferr… you can go to jail and lose your freedoms if you have an illegal person in your car.”
That sounds like non-sense on its face. Where did that come up?
Kevin – I can imagine that an AZ judge would try to make some sort of “unconstitutional as applied” finding. The classic judicial cop out.
So, if you don’t know what’s really going on, why do you (and the rest of the leftards) assume the worst? Why? I cannot understand this. Maybe when the camera isn’t on them, they’re handing out candy, or being really nice to people they don’t like? You don’t know yet you pass judgment as if you do. Guilty until proven innocent in your world, eh?
Grow up already.
The law as passed merely takes the Federal Laws and makes them State Laws, enforceable by the local authorities. It is doing the job the government won’t, strike that, refuses to do. We’re making it legal, by Arizona Law, to do what the Federal Government has already said it would.
We’ll see how it plays out. I can’t wait ’till it gets to the Supreme Court. That’ll be interesting.
Under what law?
I dunno, sdferr. I read that in that hoochie’s article this morning… the one Pablo called a progg. I will re-find.
She is a progg, happyfeet. Pablo did not just call her one.
here is what she says
you can imagine how I felt when I read that I was like zounds, that’s not good
She is, at the very least and by her own words, a big fan of the proggs.
Kresh people what have power abuse it when they think they can’t get caught. A lot a lot a lot. People what seek power and authoritah? Do not trust.
Bullshit.
Bullshit is the very term I’d use as well. She gives no basis on which to believe her claim.
You mean a person can get in trouble for for exploiting cheap, illegal labor?
The fuck you say!
She really never does note where she finds this new crime to transport illegals, knowingly or un-knowingly, and there is nothing in the law that passed that references that.
this says the law includes an it’s illegal to transport the illegal people clause too
Troof and Justices!
If you want to know what’s in a law, you look at the polls.
this also says it is criminal to transport the illegal ones
Pablo they polled people about what they thought of the provision of the law it says.
*provisions* I mean
Here’s what the law says:
I haven’t read it myself but a link to the statutory language would be the only worthwhile source on the question.
And sdferr does just that. Good work.
yes bh… there are many who are under the impression that this Arizona law makes it a criminal act to transport an illegal person… but we should read the law I will google
It sounds more like a coyote clause to me.
That number 4 follows on the lead clause of this section:
Here’s the Arizona Format Document, so called.
Happyfeet,
Meghan “Mensa” McCain is making stuff up. Businesses in AZ don’t fear ICE raids. Any employer can go to the Social Security web site, input a prospective employees Social Security number and check to see if the number is legitimate.
More than likely, the only businesses in AZ that fear an ICE raid are those that have reason to fear an ICE raid.
“People what seek power and authoritah? Do not trust.”
So much for the commissioned officer corps of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines…
here
so the lady is right that you could unknowingly get in trouble if they decided you “recklessly disregarded” stuff that you should have thought about.
Coyote clause.
Will it be misused? Likely. Will that misuse get smacked down in court? Also likely.
Jack McCoy could find a way to misuse it. But justice would come out the other end. Like a new sausage.
Were Jack McCoy in Arizona, that is.
The president the other day voiced his concerns that hispanics whose great-grandparents immigrated to the US will be arrested just because they don’t have their papers on them. Total Fucking Bullshit. In the same way that a police officer can tell the difference between a black person who is the descendent of slaves and a black person who was born in Africa and recently immigrated here, after a very short conversation, you can tell the difference between 1st gen Mexican immigrants and those who’ve been here longer within about 10 seconds of meeting them. I live in an area of the country that is about 60% Mexican-American and I can tell you within 15 seconds which side of the river they were born on. The president is a lying demogogue. Which I find shocking. Or not.
oh.
I was wondering what the “It is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to:” part meant.
But you can’t go to jail it says they just fine you.
“recklessly disregard” implies “knowingly” and both modifies and amplifies it as written.
So. Those who transport illegals they know to be illegals open themselves up to a violation for transporting illegals they know to be illegals.
OUTRAGE!
Jeff – but would we get the Jack McCoy shrug and “see what I am dealing with” look for the jury?
Well, here we go:
I’m going to shut up before I say something that might offend about thirty percent of those polled.
Oh, and Nazy [sic].
“if the person knows or recklessly disregards”
That’s gonna be way more complex than appears in that simple language. Say you ask for a green card with legal validity as work permit and a fake green card you can’t tell is fake is produced. You surely can’t be seen as recklessly disregarding just because you’ve been had. But it does look like if you go the the Home Depot to hire on day labor, you damn well better ask for and be shown a green card before you go hauling off Mr Dayworker to paint your house.
oh. I thought “recklessly disregards” means they tell you you knew it or should have known it and then they see if a jury or a judge agrees…
IANAL, but reckless disregard and known or should have known seem to be miles apart.
Good, now I’ve got a solid reason to work to get rid of Cornelius IV. I’m done with him.
I just wrote the moron, sdferr. Even from a county north.
You can’t “disregard” what you don’t already know.
I should think that’s obvious. But then, we have Republicans so worried about pandering to the brown ones that they see Nazis in Arizona, so who knows any longer what is “obvious.”
Incidentally, THAT’S how you’ll get the TEA Party involved in immigration reform, happy, not by taking the position that illegal immigration is a problem.
‘feets is more than happy to run away from any conservative issue if said issue can be portrayed in a negative light. No balls in that sack.
we’ll see Mr. Jeff… I see what you’re saying… it’s just she’s one of those Reason people and they know from disregardings
By the way, Kevin B at 32 has it right — at least, from what I’ve so far been able to gather.
If this law is akin to Nazi cleansings, then the federal law — not enforced much but on the books — is the same.
And if we determine that we can’t secure our borders on “civil rights” grounds, we will have adjudicated ourselves out of existence.
cf. The Commerce Clause; cf., also, Kelo and “public use” vs. “public good.”
You have first to regard before you can logically dis-regard.
I don’t know how much simpler I can make it.
you have many faith in justices Mr. Jeff… I do not share your faith.
I think of it like this: what you know is your friend tells you there’s a day-worker pool down in the Home Depot parking lot, he says there’s usually thirty guys there, of whom roughly seven will be otherwise undifferentiated locally born legal workers who speak only English (and you know you speak only English) and the rest will be mostly Spanish speakers, some of whom can speak some English as well, some of whom are altogether illegal aliens and some of whom are legally employable aliens with documents. If you go hire some Spanish-speaking only guy and don’t bother to check for a green card, you’ve recklessly disregarded the distinct possibility you’re hiring an illegal guy. If you check and get a fake green card you haven’t recklessly disregarded what you know. If you check and the guy can’t produce a green card and you don’t hire him, but hire the guy who speaks nothing but English and says he went to West High Point High, you’re regarding.
I think sdferr has it right.
Since when is illegal a race?
Cornelius IV?
Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV, in full.
“The new law allows police to question and arrest people they suspect of being undocumented and makes it a crime to transport illegal immigrants.”
Which would be aimed at the coyotes, not at Joe Blow giving Jose a ride down to the bus station after he did his lawn.
he seems like a mixed bag I guess…
and he hates Chavez…
also the wikipedia says before he was in politics he was a … marketing executive
“This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is a danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
-Justice Robert Jackson, dissenting in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 1949
Done with him. There’s plenty of other folks around here who don’t nazify Arizonans, and yet have reasonable views of our one-time Constitutional Republic. Plenty.
oh. Is he your personal rep person?
we need to point out at the outset that the manufactured outrage at this very reasonable and measured bill is based 100% on fearmongering and 0% on actual evidence of abuse or recital of the law. Any argument used against this can be used in spades over DWI laws “wait, a perfectly innocent person could be driving down the road, inadvertently drift out lane, and a cop could stop and DEMAND he take a breathalyzer?!?”
Reality check: The only people who really need to a fear anything are people who are here illegally. Notably mexico is telling mexicans not to visit Arizona, and the day labor sites are reportedly disappearing… I guess the bill worked already.
“This is simply allowing AZ law enforcement agencies to, um, enforce the law. Somehow allowing a State to enforce already existing Federal law is a threat to the fabric of the Republic?”
It’s a threat to the fabric of an Open-Borders America. It’s a threat to the cheap labor lobby. It’s a threat to Aztlan-style political power. Do the open-borders folks KNOW they are screwing America’s future or is it merely RECKLESS DISREGARD?
“More than likely, the only businesses in AZ that fear an ICE raid are those that have reason to fear an ICE raid.”
Right, and there is shock – pure utter shock – that a local policeman can actually -gasp – detain a person for a violation of FEDERAL law. … what next, local police interfering with international drug cartels and actually breaking them up?
Taking action really makes the incompetent ones very upset. After a 3-day hissy fit, even Obama is back to the cant-do-anything-on-immigration-blame-Republicans-for-inaction whining. Nothing. Will. Be. Done. They will NEVER solve illegal immigration because actually solving the problem requires leaders to ‘man up’ and say “some people here dont belong here and are going home.” They will get elected.,
Meanwhile, other border states look jealously at Arizona cleaning up their state. More will follow their lead.
He is, and if I have my way, will have been but is no more come Nov.
“There’s plenty of other folks around here who don’t nazify Arizonans”
If he is the same Connie Mack who was on board the Charlie Crist bandwagon … There’s your Clue Right There.
Everyone needs to be done with that clown show. Charlie Crist is the most absymal, graping, selfish, careerist-opportunist all-for-myself politician of the year, and given the competition from all sides … that says a lot.
Since Democrats assumed — on scant evidence, I think — that once legalized they’d all vote Democrat forever and ever and…
They will NEVER solve illegal immigration because actually solving the problem requires leaders to ‘man up’ and say “some people here dont belong here and are going home.”
My take is that they will never solve illegal immigration at the federal level because the business of the US is business, as they say.
So Connie Mack has come out as a Charlie Crist Republican? Meh.
Well, not being able to speak English is reasonable suspicion that the person is not a citizen. It is not proof, but enough for further questioning. The other issue is that an illegal alien will most likely not have Arizona or U.S. identification. That person might have Mexican identification, but that creates reasonable suspicion the person is here illegally, as an alien legally here will have a passport with a visa and Form I-94 Arrival Departure Record, or a Border Crossing Card, or a green card (Form I-551 Resident Alien Card). Today most illegals arrested in Arizona are arrested because they don’t have drivers licenses. So, there is no validity to the concerns by libertarians, unless they are against issueing driver licenses to anyone.
Saying that at some point people have “earned enough” is reasonable suspicion that Obama is a Marxist.
Form I-94 Arrival Departure Record
I-94 is how North Dakotans escape. Weren’t we talking about Mexicans?
“Of course, even if they have reason to pull someone over, police are not supposed to demand documents unless they have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is here illegally.”
Not quite. The law says if you have “reasonable suspicion” you must ask for documents. It doesn’t say you’re not supposed to demand them unless you have reasonable suspicion.
Though i’ve found that with certain libertarians, there’s nothing they like so much as state power directed at the right kinds of people.
Connie Mack is a Crist Republican? That certainly gives an interesting slant to this article: Link.
What nishi and happyfeet look for — happyfeet with dread, nishi with slavering anticipation — is yet another instance of Ric’s Rule #3, or the Field of Nightmares Principle: if you build it, they will come. People who want power will seek out positions of power, and if you create a position of power, power-seekers will be drawn to it like flies to a fresh cow patty. That includes people who want to be policemen. We still have the lingering effects of the former ethic of public service, which means that we can still expect the majority of policemen to do their duty without egregious violations of people’s rights, but there have always been people drawn to police work by the opportunity to lord it over the peasants, and we can expect overbearing cops.
There is no reason to expect this effect to be worse in the case of a law against illegal immigrants than it is for laws against, say, unsafe cars or poor nutrition at McDonalds, so the bleats of people claiming to be civil libertarians can be sneered at.
My own objections are rather different, and I wish I spoke good enough Spanish to make the point to the people who need to hear it. Bluntly, why did they come here? More importantly, why did they leave home? Answer: Because the socioeconomic system at home had failed them. They come because our system is better at providing an opportunity for a decent life. That’s true whether they intend to stay, or only mean to get rich and go home.
Why, then, do they ally themselves with the political faction that has as its specifically avowed intent and purpose to remake the United States in the image of the home they left? It is, I suppose, one solution to the problem of illegal immigration. If they can expect the same pseudo-socialist BS here as they have where they come from, there’s no reason for them to make the trip.
Regards,
Ric
Because the socioeconomic system at home had failed them.
They might likely tell you that the reasons the socioeconomic systems at home failed them is because the great gringo to the north has set up a system that advantages it at the expense of others. Not all of course, but certainly enough.
Then would you set out to patiently explain Ricardo’s great discovery of comparative advantage Makewi?
Great point, Ric.
East Germans tried to run to West Germany, not communist Poland.
Oh, and as to this reeeedikulus claims as to some kind of unfair burden on people, guess what?
My wife, for convenience sake, got a PA state id (not a licence, she doesn’t drive)
Guess where it is in her wallet?
Right next to her green card.
I am not in the office and do not have access to any materials right now, but words and phrases in the law have certain meanings they may not share with common usage. Probable cause, reasonable suspicion, reckless disregard, and so on; and those definitions are known to LEO’s and prosecutors and courts, and juries are instructed as to the meaning of those terms and how they apply.
So getting into a lather about technical terms for which you don’t have the proper definition is a bad thing. As is going to Home Depot and giving some random guy a ride to your house to do some work on it – do I got to explain the potential danger of that?
You want work done on your home? Do it yourself, get friends and family to help you, or call an actual licensed contractor.
“…call an actual licensed contractor.”
Statism monger!
I might sdferr, if only to plant the idea. Even so, if you think yourself a victim of powers beyond your control, the ability to examine all sides of an issue rationally may be currently beyond your ability.
BTW – if you ever meet my sister in law (who is here legally) do not call her a Mexican or Puerto Rican. She is a Colombian and can get pretty vexed about that sort of thing.
You do not want her vexed.
#109 sdferr:
Yeah, you actually get someone who can prove that he can do the job he claims he can do, will pull the permits, and is insured if he screws up.
:p
“…the ability to examine all sides of an issue rationally may be currently beyond your ability.”
Hmmm, may ought to have that concealed carry permit up to date, huh?
Course, that’s just a lawyer selling his book, since he’s gonna find employment on either side of the issue, defending the contractor or attacking him, makes no nevermind. And adding to the State code, which will be in want of interpretation in future? Gravy baby, gravy.
Mr. Drudge has thickened his panicsauce even further.
Well sure, but only because there really is a gringo to the north who is out to get me. Or if not me in specific then me in general.
Why does he hate us so happyfeet? Do you think he had a bad experience with an automobile engine as a child?
he is a florida one like you… he lives in a condo from where he can probably see the ocean, but I think he just wants to cause trouble…
what he might be thinking… there’s an argument floating around that without the offshore oil drilling sweetener, cap n trade or whatever climate fraud they decide on is d.o.a.
#104 Makewi: sure, there’s lots of that.
It’s irrelevant. The point is, the Democrats are trying to make our system identical to the one they had at home — and if they do that, what happens to all the effort and sacrifice made to get here?
Regards,
Ric
It doesn’t matter, Ric. It’s always about the short term.
I wasn’t sure what you guys were on about with the Drudge talk until I clicked over there. Oil slick! Red font! Big letters!
Now I’m wondering, am I even safe up here in Wisconsin? During tornadoes I go down to the basement. I think I’ll try that.
Careful bh, the stuff flows, albeit slowly, to the low points. You could be drownded down there! And it’s sticky too. Yuck.
oil stalks an already-frightened people
Ric,
Not if you believe that a system similar to Mexico’s could work here because those doing the oppressing aren’t subject to the same economic outcomes as those being oppressed. That is the situation is different enough so that the outcome would have to be different.
That sounds like Hollywood talk, ‘feets. Love it.
I hear Conan is on 60 Mins this weekend, dishing. An already-consumed peoples too.
The trick to surviving a rampaging oil slick is to use a small furry creature or bird as a shield. I’ve seen the pictures, oil always goes for the cute animals first.
“oil stalks an already-frightened people”
Are they anything like celery stalks?
Intelligent, perambulating vegatables.
Sorta like “The Day of the Triffids”.
Which is a very good book, btw, and a very good movie.
“…oil always goes for the cute animals first.”
So, if I’m in a forest fire, I hide behind a deer?
Speaking of ants and sugar, which we were about to, it’s always about the short term as it can be relayed back down the network. If the battleground changes, everybody knows right now and everybody takes evasive action. Entire systems move as one.
There are no real borders for information, especially when on political party at least constantly advertises the bennies so as to remain in office.
I just checked outside. No oil… yet.
All the animals seem nervous though. Saw a dog pacing nervously while smoking a cigarette. Pretty sure that means oil slick. Or earthquake. Or oilquake. I think I need a drink.
BNoobQuake! VagVolcanism! HuzzieHurricanoes! Flee Am’rikans! Flee!
It seems that mexico’s comparative advantage lies in sending us labor.
They make some outstanding Tequila and they also have a crap load of scorpions.
Oh, and if you say “cock fight” in Mexico almost no one giggles. That has to be worth something.
bh, I thought dogs only paced and smoked when their bitch is about to have puppies.
Oh, I didn’t think of that, Blake. Which, great news. According to Makewi, the oil slick will attack the puppies long before me.
By the way, via Insty, Jacobson offers, “Just Say It – ‘All Immigration Laws Are Racist'”.
If Mexico is sending illegal aliens across out border, we’re going to have a different problem with that than we seem to have now. If, on the other hand, Mexico merely immiserates its own people and only indirectly causes those people to flee to the US, we are where we are.
So, if I’m in a forest fire, I hide behind a deer?
And run the risk of being hit by a car? No thanks. Best bet is to find a bear cub. Just make sure to bring a picnic basket with which to bribe the mother.
I always wondered about Yogi and Boo-Boo.
JellyStoneVagVolcanoes! Run Billy, run!
“state’s rights”
States don’t have rights. People have rights. States have powers. Some of those are even just powers, to protect the rights of the people.
I always wondered about Yogi and Boo-Boo.
As well you should. Who the hell wears a tie with no pants?
I need to order up three tons of scorpions, with an option for another twelve if I find the first shipment satisfactory.
On an entirely unrelated note, I also need to know the address of SEIU headquarters.
That was five years ago, and I burned up all the negatives!
We need a few more undercover operatives like zombietime to get out and record the May Day demonstrations on Saturday. It should be a big general progressive flake-out bolstered by illegal immigration activism. Anyone want to dust off the old black street-fighting duds and hair gel and get some real hate video? Though the kids might not turn out Saturday with Cinco de Mayo coming up; after all, it’s much more fun if you can walk out of school. The Tea Party demonstrations are on Tax Day and 4th of July, while Team Obama(auxiliary) are out on May Day and Cinco de Mayo. And the optics of this hurts non-leftists how again?
Comment by happyfeet on 4/29 @ 11:56 am #
I stand wif Darleen.
Er…uh… please move a bit, over there…..
cuz, like, HF, I support the AZ law even as I had some reservations. It’s Constitutional as law, and it will remain Constitutional if it is enforced correctly.
Proof in the pudding, so to speak.
even otters can’t paddle backwards that fast
you got toe nail fungus yuck
From my post:
Note the bolded part, plus
Subsequent to my post I’ve heard/read several people who state that the bill IS Constitutional as written and will continue to be Constitution if it is enforced without violating any civil rights — not the least of which is John Eastman, Chapman University School of Law. He’s pretty authorative when it comes to Constitutional issues.
I liked this provision Darleen. It seems patient and sensible to create an intelligence team, to work the problem carefully.
#149 darleen: As I have stated, ‘reasonable suspicion’ is a term of art to the law and those who deal with it. And as a phrase it has been defined, and will be applied as defined or God help the LEO who doesn’t follow that definition.
As a lawyer I am an intentionalist because my profession demands that – it demands fixed definitions or it has nothing to judge actions, and after judging, come to a conclusion.
(not being a prick – it is just what I have been doing – and having to consider – for the last fourteen years)
Mikey – What I do not understand is why so many people think that they just pulled reasonable suspicion right out of their asses.
the happyfeet stands alone
Society’s enemies are liberals’ mascots.
Yowza, who cut the cheese.
My own objections are rather different, and I wish I spoke good enough Spanish to make the point to the people who need to hear it.
Here ya go:
¿Por qué los latinos migran a Estados Unidos? Porque los sistemas socioeconómicos de sus patrias les han traicionado. Vienen porque nuestro sistema proporciona las oportunidades para una vida decente. No importa si piesan quedarse o sólo quieren enriquecerse y volver a sus países.
¿Por qué, entonces, se alían con la facción política que tiene como fin específico y declarado el convertir a los Estados Unidos en un país que sea igual al sistema que huyeron? Es, supongo, una solución al problema de la inmigración ilegal. Si pueden esperar las mismas seudo-socialistas mentiras que tienen en sus patrias, no hay por qué hacer el viaje acá.
I’m thinking conservative talk radio in Spanish—wherein the “American Religion” is taught—might hit the spot.
giving some random guy a ride to your house to do some work on it – do I got to explain the potential danger of that?
Elizabeth Smart can fill in any points you might have missed.
If Mexico is sending illegal aliens across out border, we’re going to have a different problem with that than we seem to have now
The Mexican gubmint prints pamphlets to tell people how to sneak into the U.S. and get set up.
After petroleum, remittances from the EEUU to Mexico are their biggest form of income. I kid you not.
Mexico’s immigration laws, BTW, are much stricter than ours, including the provision that if too many people immigrate to Mexico such that it upsets the demographics, they’ll cut you off.
IOW: Anglos and Asians and Africans will be tolerated only in tiny doses.
Catching up here, but I must confess my mancrush on Ric, with a minor quibble:
When it comes to townies, I’m afraid it isn’t a majority that’s respectable. Staties and Feds are a large step above, but there are tons of ill-equipped bullies that go to sleep at night thinking they’re keeping you safe. Which, when it comes right down to it, is beside the point.
In my experience the ill-equipped bullies are to be found in medium to larger towns. Large cities and the Feds tend to be similar, while staties vary wildly from state to state.
The bitty little towns I’ve lived in did not have the luxury of employing bullies and trouble makers. To a one the LEOs I’ve known in such places have been level headed, liberty minded, understanding of the inherent limitations of their position, and often wise beyond their years.
In the rural reaches of Arizona, Idaho, and Montana the locals will simply not tolerate an asshole with a badge. Pissing off even a few people can mean the difference come election time.
My experience is more in the Northeast, and I suspect that plays a part. I must say that San Diego cops are a decent, professional bunch. But I’ve seen a lot of punks with badges and chiefs that don’t care. New England is unfortunate, I guess.
Hey Darleen! You got your wish!
They amended the bill:
“Immigration reform has become the first of President Barack Obama’s major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment. Sounding the death knell was Obama himself.”*
Yep. I guess the super genius griefer was wrong. Go figure.
Bring on Cap and Trade! Let’s see just how low they can get their numbers before Nov.
Civilization has a way of allowing some people to persist in circumstances they might not otherwise survive. One year while living in Idaho I had a co-worker and her husband over for Thanksgiving dinner, he was the Shoshone county command sergeant on duty for that night. Shortly after dinner he received a call from dispatch, there had been a rock slide on the St. Joe road and it had buried the road. That is The only paved road into the area and all the forest road passes were already snowed in for the year. The town of Avery and everything above it up to the Montana border was cut off. There was one deputy above the slide when it happened, for the next 24 hours he was the sole LEO in the area. If anyone up that valley had had a grudge against him he wouldn’t have survived.
No backup means learning to be cautious and cautious usually means being nice.
bh….I was right again!!!!
hahaha
engagee…..feint….redoublet….parry huit………TOUCHE!!!!!!
and you didn’t even see it coming because you lissen to that teatard Allahpundit.
Do you know what Palin is exactly like? A Ringworld vampire.
And for the scifi challenged…Ringworld vampires are exquisitely evolved predators, relying on pheromones and physical appearance to lure prey….they are actually non-sapients.
Interplanetary adventurer Louis Wu is cued to that by the extemely small size of their brainpan…like the vampire females, Palin’s skullspace is just filled with beautiful hair.
:)
Sounding the death knell was
Obama hHimself.Save an ink.
Spliff.
heres an analysis at american prospect.
Schumer and Graham draft immigration bill!!!
lol….AllahP SAID obamnesty was deaders until after cap-n-trade….not so much.
can you get your money back?
“Repent, outlaw!” said the Griefer-chick.
Uhhh, yeah, that was in the story insty linked, griefer. You should read it. ‘Cause of the epistemic openness and all.
Palin applies how? Oh yeah, she doesn’t, she was just next in line in your random griefing rotation.
can you get your money back?
We will on November 10, darlin’. Tick-tock-tick-tock…
For laughs, griefer, make a prediction on the latest date you think they’ll take a vote in the house on immigration reform.
Better yet, make a bet.* 10 cents will get you a dollar.
How much did you bet? C’mon, it’s a sure thing, right?
Pablo, for the ultimate in “punks with a badge”: motorcycle cops. Guaranteed. The overall image is of people who weren’t tough enough to actually join the Hell’s Angels, and have been compensating ever since.
I’ll be sure to check this thread for your prediction tomorrow, griefer. Then we’ll check your hypothesis against reality on the date you predict.
Science!
Schumer and Graham draft immigration bill!!!
Hell no, we won’t go !!!
About a week ago Jeff G. posted a request for input on Science Fiction to read “(if only to figure out what the hell Nishi is talking about half the time)
“.
Unfortunately that will not be possible as Nishi seems very determined to read her own views, assumptions, and quirks into even the quite straight forward prose works by authors such as Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. God only knows what kind of intentional mess she would make of Dick, Stephenson or some of the later Heinlein.
The law’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications “just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that’s been played.”
Yeah, that’ll do it. (headdesk)
Not saying the revisions aren’t good, just saying it won’t stop someone who lied yesterday from lying tomorrow – the left will continue their talking points.
Every time I think I’ve seen the MSM and the left at their most dishonest, they find a new low.
“For laughs, griefer, make a prediction on the latest date you think they’ll take a vote in the house on immigration reform.”
I imagine they will start trying to bring it to the floor in august……so it will still be nice and raw for the recess townhalls…..kinda like you teatards did for HCR.
Lotsa juicy terebi coverage of the racist, nativist angry old white people base……hopefully to screw Rubios chances with hispanics and latinos forevah.
Paybacks a bitch, aint it?
Morgan and Stephenson are my favorites right now.
Ringworld, Dune, and Mote are classics.
I don’t care much for old ppl scifi……Heinlein, Asimov, etc……its kinda dated.
“the happyfeet stands alone”
Don’t you love your country? Then how about getting with the program? Why don’t you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Not feeling it yet?
CLICK THE LINK
FTA: Arizona’s new law clamping down on illegals has given Barack Obama and the left an opening to unlimber their big guns. The incoming fire has been brutal. The rounds landing have been charges of racism. But conservatives, Republicans, and all pro-law Americans need to get out of their foxholes and return fire. Better yet, pro-law forces need to outflank Mr. Obama’s army. A battle plan follows:
(I like the cut of this fella’s jib)
Happyfeet, all I’ve ever asked of my Outlaws is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Mexicans, because inside every illegal alien there is an American trying to get out. It’s a hardball world, son. We’ve gotta keep our heads until this amnesty craze blows over.
bh – Notice how it managed to weasel its way out of actually responding directly to your proposed wager?
testest
Nishi knows she’s gonna lose, and lose big.
Baracky’s finished.
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye…
lawls
:)
Yeah, I did notice that, JD. It’s almost like she lacks confidence or something.
Also notice how Nishi now claims to know better than Teh One, who took it off the table yesterday.
good morning I think that guy has the irrational exhuberationisms Mr. Danger
There’s no reason to think immigration will move the dial for Team R. The measure of how actually relatively politically inert the issue is? Meghan’s pathetic loser daddy is cruising for re-election.
““Ho! Ha-ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust! SPWWWWOINGGGG!” [hits moron in face]
-The fascist twat wielding the buck-and-a-quarter staff
I’m not sure about that. But, I hope you’re right. We might be able to fix the problems then and introduce the global legal immigrationings.
We could start by eliminating all minimum wages though, whattaya say bh?
I mean politically inert in the sense that most of the even slightly rabid immigrationistas were already squarely in Team R’s camp already.
most meaning all
“…, because inside every illegal alien there is an American trying to get out.”
One of the nicest compliment I ever read was “You’re an American. You were just born in the wrong place.”
Which is why I want the immigrants to come here legally.
You know my general view, sdferr. Junk all that crap. Minimum wage laws would be just the start.
“Immigration reform doesn’t have to pass to pay dividends.”
That sounds about right meya. The Democrats don’t want to reach a rational equilibrium, they want crisis and chaos. They aren’t interested in reasonable solutions to the problems in Arizona’s capital city, they want to stir up irrational bloodlust in their voting blocs, and the more the merrier. This is their idea of responsible governing.
I almost care what you think, bdam/meya/troll.
Interesting.
The fascist twat down’t like the best American writer since Mark Twain, RAH.
You know, I really do know how to spell.
who took it off the table yesterday….for now.
this is april, not august.
Obamas best gamemove is to play the immigration card closer to November, to whip up his base….youth, college-educated, women, minorities.
So the outrage will be fresh.
Your guyz are already at Max Outrage.
soon they will start to stroke out or get bored.
Max Outrage is unsustainable.
Oh, and by the way, bdam is apparently referencing some RACIST! nonsense from Matthew Yglesiasm, who made a point in a column that was considerably less racist than a similar comment made by then DNC Chairman Howard Dean. Classic leftist race-baiting. Fuck you, bdam.
hehe
proof– look at HCR rhetoric……repeal is fading fast.
nishit is a lying cunt. That is all. Max Outrage? Wanting existing laws enforced is outrage? Silly fucking griefer. Run back to Atrios, Cole, Sully, and Kos and tell them how great you are.
Nishi’s already at max stupidity, and in her case that’s fully sustainable.
Mr LaRoche – how dare you sell that twat short?! She can get more stupid, guaranteed. Every time you think a leftist cannot get more stupid, they never fail to prove you wrong.
True, JD. But as a member of teh evil WEC patriarchy, it is my duty to try and take away the twat-in-question’s agency.
“Max Outrage is unsustainable.”
Like Pournelle said, fascist twats just don’t understand the amount of anger good people can generate.
The same mistake al Queda made.
Here‘s that George Will column meya mentions.
See if you think
is an accurate assessment.
bh – compare and contrast Howard Dean’s comments, which were explicitly incendiary, and George Will’s, which were not. Then, compare and contrast the leftist outrage.
Yep, they’re pretty discriminatory about what they consider inflammatory speech, JD.
Btw, yesterday ‘feets was saying he stood alone. Which, more often than not, has to do with what local crowd you’re standing around. For instance, check out Boudreaux’s response to Will. This is actually the fairly uniform reaction amongst the more right leaning economic types I read. It’s surely the standard viewpoint I learned in Chicago. Maybe they’re right. Or, maybe, like all of us, they’re liable to hit screws with their favorite hammer. (See nishi, for an extreme example.) Legal and societal issues might not lend themselves to their standard analysis anymore than food criticism, auto repair, or art appreciation would.
Yes, Ringworld, at four decades old, is fresh. Ditto Dune (45 years old) and Mote (36 years old). The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is a more recent piece than Dune.
Not saying anything about their relative literary and spec-fic merits, just about their age.
“You think the RNC could get this many people of color into a single room?”…”Maybe if they got the hotel staff in there.”
hodean and the Dems in their own words.
so very very alone
The problem, as I have stated before, is immigration is the blind men and the elephant parable on steroids. Everyone seems to have this compulsion to localize and oversimplify it and winds up just
talkingyelling past one another.And that is the ones not trying to demagogue it.
“hodean and the Dems in their own words.”
There’s a real connection between the idea that increasing the color at an RNC meeting can only be achieved by inviting in the service and the fact that George Will thinks that the only way to meet hispanics is to look the service.
Such intense stupidity makes my brain hurt. Adios, bdam!
Meya – when we want your opinion, we will kick a cat. In the meantime, STFU, you mendoucheous twatwaffle.
George Will’s social life is none of my damned business.
“Max Outrage is unsustainable.”
For the Left, without basic principles, to inform and form a solid position and the violation of which cause the rage, that is true. Their rage burns hot like flash paper.
Not so on the Right. There rage is fueled by violations of principles which are not ephemeral. It is not a “hot flash”, but a dish served cold.
Boudreaux wants what even most of us here favore: more legal immigration (or at least, easier legal immigration). But a complete open border policy is ridiculous given the nature of our current welfare state. Too, such a policy disproportionately favors those who are lucky enough to be born adjoining or contiguous to the US.
Also, why is it in the interest of freedom to keep importing low skill laborers that drain limited resources and who use their positions to outsource wealth back to their “home” countries?
Answer: it doesn’t. And Boudreaux’s sniffing superiority is the abstract pose of one with no skin in the game.
geoffb, heard any rageraving about HCR lately?
I sure haven’t.
qed
Slart, I exempted the classics.
<3
I ask myself: what thinking person of color would seek out a group that was collecting them like trophies?
I still can’t figure it out.
This, I think, is an important point. Hayek was all about local actors making local decisions. Which is something that makes me hesitate before criticizing.
I’m not in a border state. I’m as removed as a faceless central planner in DC. Never a good place to start when proposing or criticizing legislation or economic decisions. There’s a definite tension here involving the recognition of the information asymmetry normally so pronounced with this way of thinking.
As a bunch of free marketers, y’all should know what the policy answers are.
I like the idea of a guest worker program. I know the idea was one that Bush discussed, but which seemed to have died on the vine.
“heard any”
Cold does, talk is flashy, actions speak slower but last.
“Also, why is it in the interest of freedom to keep importing low skill laborers that drain limited resources and who use their positions to outsource wealth back to their “home” countries?”
This is not usually how people see trade.
Meya is trying to out-twatwaffle nishit.
“geoffb, heard any rageraving about HCR lately?
I sure haven’t.
qed”
Yeah Nishi,
The Dems are really feeling good about Obamacare’s future.
“A “tell” in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player’s behavior or demeanor that reveals clues about the player’s assessment of his hand. Something similar has happened with regard to the insurance mandate at the core of last month’s health reform legislation. Congress justified its authority to enact the mandate on the grounds that it is a regulation of commerce. But as this justification came under heavy constitutional fire, the mandate’s defenders changed the argument—now claiming constitutional authority under Congress’s power to tax.”
I pity the fool lawyer that serves up that gopher ball to Cheif Justice Roberts.
“This switch in constitutional theories is a tell: Defenders of the bill lack confidence in their commerce power theory. The switch also comes too late. When the mandate’s constitutionality comes up for review as part of the state attorneys general lawsuit, the Supreme Court will not consider the penalty enforcing the mandate to be a tax because, in the provision that actually defines and imposes the mandate and penalty, Congress did not call it a tax and did not treat it as a tax.
Back, back, back, back, back, THAT BABY IS GONE!
Ooops, missed one of these ” right before the ball left the park ;-)
“But as this justification came under heavy constitutional fire, the mandate’s defenders changed the argument—now claiming constitutional authority under Congress’s power to tax.””
See, the fact that there are MANY reasons why something is constitutional is… the reason why it is not!
Someone speak crazy that could interpret that last comment from bdam, por favor?
This is my response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue7y437Qu2A
ZB