San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts
in [Design]
|
Prev: Barcode Symbologies
Next: sing-a-long
From: Jim Thompson on 30 May 2010 12:03 On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:37:48 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >On Sat, 29 May 2010 16:37:50 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >I agree. > >Interesting to note that's how I came up with an opinion about the >likelihood of the Court ruling contrary to what I had thought before >investigating it. It isn't that I 'like it' or 'happy' with illegal >immigration and the Federal government's failure to properly fulfill >it's Constitutional duties. > > >I agree, for both State and Federal elections. > > >No argument as long as we also recognize that legislation must be both >State and Federally Constitutional in order to be 'law'. > > > >No argument (and I never once argued any 'discrimination' case) as >long as the 'law' is Constitutional and, as I've explained before, the >Court's ruling on prop 187 suggests to me they will not consider it so >because immigration law is a Federal, not State, power. > > >One could argue that is precisely what Arizona is attempting to do in >writing 'law' that 'ignores' (or contravenes) Federal Law because they >are fed up, pardon the pun, with the dysfunctional politics of >Washington. > > >The same 'scariness' applies to 'free to make up' Constitutional law. > >Of course, there are people who argue the SCOTUS has been doing that >for years. > > >The IIRIRA specifically states 'who' is authorized to investigate >immigration status (and the 'rules') and I believe the Court will see >the Arizona statute as a conscious and deliberate attempt to >contravene those requirements which, I believe, raises a Supremacy >Clause issue. > > > >States have never been able to write law in contradiction to >Constitutionally granted Federal powers. That is the Supremacy Clause. > >As I explained before, another potential 'problem' I see with writing >a State law 'criminalizing' immigration status is that the State has >no power to determine immigration status, nor to 'interpret' Federal >Law, so even if you have reasonable cause to 'suspect' you cannot >'convict' in State court. At the very least not without the >'cooperation' of ICE (such as to 'testify' they have made a >determination) but, as a practical matter, if ICE determines they're >in the country illegally the offender will be, in theory, deported and >unable to appear for the State 'trial'. But if ICE determines they may >stay, for whatever reason, then, by golly, they're here 'legally' >regardless of State Law. ICE is 'the controlling authority'. > >On the other hand, if ICE simply refuses to 'cooperate', and the State >has no power to compel, the State is stuck with either letting them go >or permanent detention of, or some other draconian act against, >'suspects' never proved 'guilty', nor 'triable', until if and when >'ICE comes to their senses'. > >None of those are tenable and I suspect the (Federal) Court will frown >on 'law' that cannot be adjudicated by any agency of the government >that wrote it. > >Of course, Arizona has no intent to State prosecute. That's a >manufactured 'legalism' designed to expand the officers 'authorized' >to investigate and detain for ICE, except IIRIRA Federal law does not >allow it. > > >I suspect the Court will also notice the 'cleverness' but it usually >frowns on clever "schemes" (as the judge called prop 187) intended to >circumvent the Constitution and Federal law, as it seems that one is >expressly designed to do. > >Frankly, I'm sympathetic to, on the surface at least, the seeming >populist practicality of "if you won't do it then we will" but I don't >see any such exception mentioned in the Supremacy Clause. Which is not >to say the SCOTUS might not just 'invent' it but divesting Federal >powers has not been the general direction for well over 100 years. > Glad to see you're such a legal exspurt ;-) The 9th Circuit Court of Fairies will, of course, rule against Arizona. That's a good thing... we can go straight to SCOTUS. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Jim Thompson on 30 May 2010 20:20 On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:11:18 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >On Sun, 30 May 2010 09:03:32 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:37:48 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 29 May 2010 16:37:50 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>I agree. >>> >>>Interesting to note that's how I came up with an opinion about the >>>likelihood of the Court ruling contrary to what I had thought before >>>investigating it. It isn't that I 'like it' or 'happy' with illegal >>>immigration and the Federal government's failure to properly fulfill >>>it's Constitutional duties. >>> >>> >>>I agree, for both State and Federal elections. >>> >>> >>>No argument as long as we also recognize that legislation must be both >>>State and Federally Constitutional in order to be 'law'. >>> >>> >>> >>>No argument (and I never once argued any 'discrimination' case) as >>>long as the 'law' is Constitutional and, as I've explained before, the >>>Court's ruling on prop 187 suggests to me they will not consider it so >>>because immigration law is a Federal, not State, power. >>> >>> >>>One could argue that is precisely what Arizona is attempting to do in >>>writing 'law' that 'ignores' (or contravenes) Federal Law because they >>>are fed up, pardon the pun, with the dysfunctional politics of >>>Washington. >>> >>> >>>The same 'scariness' applies to 'free to make up' Constitutional law. >>> >>>Of course, there are people who argue the SCOTUS has been doing that >>>for years. >>> >>> >>>The IIRIRA specifically states 'who' is authorized to investigate >>>immigration status (and the 'rules') and I believe the Court will see >>>the Arizona statute as a conscious and deliberate attempt to >>>contravene those requirements which, I believe, raises a Supremacy >>>Clause issue. >>> >>> >>> >>>States have never been able to write law in contradiction to >>>Constitutionally granted Federal powers. That is the Supremacy Clause. >>> >>>As I explained before, another potential 'problem' I see with writing >>>a State law 'criminalizing' immigration status is that the State has >>>no power to determine immigration status, nor to 'interpret' Federal >>>Law, so even if you have reasonable cause to 'suspect' you cannot >>>'convict' in State court. At the very least not without the >>>'cooperation' of ICE (such as to 'testify' they have made a >>>determination) but, as a practical matter, if ICE determines they're >>>in the country illegally the offender will be, in theory, deported and >>>unable to appear for the State 'trial'. But if ICE determines they may >>>stay, for whatever reason, then, by golly, they're here 'legally' >>>regardless of State Law. ICE is 'the controlling authority'. >>> >>>On the other hand, if ICE simply refuses to 'cooperate', and the State >>>has no power to compel, the State is stuck with either letting them go >>>or permanent detention of, or some other draconian act against, >>>'suspects' never proved 'guilty', nor 'triable', until if and when >>>'ICE comes to their senses'. >>> >>>None of those are tenable and I suspect the (Federal) Court will frown >>>on 'law' that cannot be adjudicated by any agency of the government >>>that wrote it. >>> >>>Of course, Arizona has no intent to State prosecute. That's a >>>manufactured 'legalism' designed to expand the officers 'authorized' >>>to investigate and detain for ICE, except IIRIRA Federal law does not >>>allow it. >>> >>> >>>I suspect the Court will also notice the 'cleverness' but it usually >>>frowns on clever "schemes" (as the judge called prop 187) intended to >>>circumvent the Constitution and Federal law, as it seems that one is >>>expressly designed to do. >>> >>>Frankly, I'm sympathetic to, on the surface at least, the seeming >>>populist practicality of "if you won't do it then we will" but I don't >>>see any such exception mentioned in the Supremacy Clause. Which is not >>>to say the SCOTUS might not just 'invent' it but divesting Federal >>>powers has not been the general direction for well over 100 years. >>> >> >>Glad to see you're such a legal exspurt ;-) > >Well, that's the great thing about the rules of rational discourse, an >argument stands or falls on it's own merits and not the alleged >credentials of the author, and, being a Texan, I'm arrogant enough to >respectfully argue with a Supreme Court Justice if I disagree. > >>The 9th Circuit Court of Fairies will, of course, rule against >>Arizona. > >Except for including my take on what their reasoning would be, that's >all I've been saying. > >> That's a good thing... we can go straight to SCOTUS. > >A good 'glass half full' view of it. Of course, if they ruled for you >then you wouldn't need someone else to rule for you because you would >have had a ruling for you. > >Btw, I wouldn't mind if you asked your son-in-law his opinion of the >argument and would be interested to hear his take on it. I suspect he >won't agree but that's the point of a discussion: to hear differing >opinions. > >> ...Jim Thompson I could never be the go-between. He's brilliant, fast and hard even to take notes from. Maybe, one of these days, all will be well at the same time , and I can put together the SED bash, with my family and neighbors as well. The Republican Party has already indicated that, if he'd drop his Libertarian label, he'd be assured of a judge-ship. But he won't do it. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: John Doe on 31 May 2010 01:00 flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: > Jim Thompson wrote: >> Glad to see you're such a legal exspurt ;-) > > Well, that's the great thing about the rules of rational > discourse, an argument stands or falls on it's own merits and > not the alleged credentials of the author You have made several unsupported claims in this thread, that you are sympathetic, unbiased, and that you know about the law. Nym-shifting and hiding your prior posts with the no-archive switch suggests otherwise.
From: Jim Thompson on 8 Jun 2010 13:04 On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:57:19 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:20:58 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:11:18 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >> [snip] >>> >>>Btw, I wouldn't mind if you asked your son-in-law his opinion of the >>>argument and would be interested to hear his take on it. I suspect he >>>won't agree but that's the point of a discussion: to hear differing >>>opinions. >>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>I could never be the go-between. He's brilliant, fast and hard even >>to take notes from. Maybe, one of these days, all will be well at the >>same time , and I can put together the SED bash, with my family and >>neighbors as well. > >No problem. > >I didn't mean a 'debate' though. I just wondered what he thought of >the argument. > [snip] I guess we're going to find out. Obama's urchins are avoiding SB1070. Instead they're going after the Arizona law that sanction employers for hiring illegals. More and more we can clearly see Obama's "leanings"... wonder when he'll declare that the People's Republic of the United States is an Islamic Nation? ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Jim Thompson on 8 Jun 2010 16:49
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:49:33 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:04:26 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:57:19 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:20:58 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:11:18 -0500, flipper <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote: >>>> >>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>Btw, I wouldn't mind if you asked your son-in-law his opinion of the >>>>>argument and would be interested to hear his take on it. I suspect he >>>>>won't agree but that's the point of a discussion: to hear differing >>>>>opinions. >>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>>I could never be the go-between. He's brilliant, fast and hard even >>>>to take notes from. Maybe, one of these days, all will be well at the >>>>same time , and I can put together the SED bash, with my family and >>>>neighbors as well. >>> >>>No problem. >>> >>>I didn't mean a 'debate' though. I just wondered what he thought of >>>the argument. >>> >>[snip] >> >>I guess we're going to find out. > >Not by what you say below, we're not. > > >>Obama's urchins are avoiding SB1070. >> >>Instead they're going after the Arizona law that sanction employers >>for hiring illegals. > >Positively mind boggling. Even the liberal land 9'th Circuit upheld >that one. > >Sanctioning business is an entirely different matter because >businesses are State licensed entities (clear State authority) and I >would argue that even if Federal law attempted to prohibit such >sanctions it (depending on how written) should not stand because that >power is NOT granted to the Fed. But that matter doesn't even come up >because the 1986 Federal statute makes an explicit exclusion for State >licensing (and similar) laws. > >Sanctioning business for hiring 'illegal aliens' does not necessarily >require the State to 'pre-empt' Federal determination of immigrant >status. They could sanction after ICE, or authorized agents thereof, >'do their job'. > >They're likely to argue that such a law has the 'effect' of making >employers 'immigration officers', which would be unconstitutional, but >that's not the case as there is no 'arrest' or other 'enforcement' by >the business against the alleged 'illegal alien' necessarily involved. > >>More and more we can clearly see Obama's "leanings"... wonder when >>he'll declare that the People's Republic of the United States is an >>Islamic Nation? > >I don't see the connection. > >> >> ...Jim Thompson I was just pointing out what the Obama thugs are doing... for really... look it up :-( ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy |