Arizona's new illegal alien law.....

[NM_Shooter]

Nonsense.

In what way?

The actual nonsense is this....  The premise is the following : Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?

First, Illegal aliens are not innocent life.  They are illegal.  They are here illegally and are aware of this. 
Second, I neither want to kill them nor imprison them.  I just want them out of my country and off of the US dole.

You don't have to think deeply to find ways in which this "theory" has significant flaws.  Actually, you only have to find one which renders it worthless.  Here are three:   

Is it unconstitutional to ask a person who looks younger than 21 to show ID to purchase alcohol?

Is it unconstitutional for an officer to pull over a "suspected" drunk driver on the basis of erratic, but not illegal driving?

Is it unconstitutional to ask for a person to show proof of citizenship at an immigration checkpoint in an airport or border crossing?

[NM_Shooter]

You know what?  Don't get me wrong on this. 

I think that our naturalization practices are horrible.  There are thousands of folks in the queue who are trying to do this legally, and we are not making it any easier for them to do so.  I am all for immigration reform, and it needs to start in simplifying and expediting the applications of those who want to become US citizens. 

But much like the liberal mindset thinks that healthcare reform should start with insurance and free healthcare, they now think that immigration reform should be about amnesty.

I have great insurance, yet crappy healthcare.  I have lots of laws about immigration, and little enforcement. 

Elect me president, and I will build a fence, throw out amnesty, and streamline legal immigration.  Probably get shot my first month.   

[Phssthpok]

Nonsense.

In what way?

The actual nonsense is this....  The premise is the following : Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?

First, Illegal aliens are not innocent life.  They are illegal.  They are here illegally and are aware of this. 
Second, I neither want to kill them nor imprison them.  I just want them out of my country and off of the US dole.

You don't have to think deeply to find ways in which this "theory" has significant flaws.  Actually, you only have to find one which renders it worthless.  Here are three:   

Is it unconstitutional to ask a person who looks younger than 21 to show ID to purchase alcohol?

Is it unconstitutional for an officer to pull over a "suspected" drunk driver on the basis of erratic, but not illegal driving?

Is it unconstitutional to ask for a person to show proof of citizenship at an immigration checkpoint in an airport or border crossing?

Since you asked your questions I find it only fair to answer in kind.

Yes, yes, and yes.

See...the Constitution's primary purpose is not to enable people, but to RESTRICT government. Laws abhorrent to the constitution are null and void.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

(and yes I am aware that's from the 'declaration' not the Constitution, but I doubt you'll find anything in the constitution that authorizes any of the actions in question)

[NM_Shooter]

A serious question... are you an anarchist?

So.. if it is unconstitutional to ask for ID at a border crossing, then you must believe the Constitution of the United States must apply to all persons everywhere on the globe, regardless of nationality, or geographical location.

Yeah... your quote is from the declaration, not in the constitution.  Nice try but that is even less applicable.  You know what is in the constitution?  The words "We the people... to secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES".  Not every person on the globe who happens to sneak across the border.  I believe ALL have a right to liberty and happiness... in their own damn country.  If they want to come here legally, great! 

BTW...Amendment 4 has a very, very important word in it... "unreasonable".   That very word makes all of my three scenarios legal under the constitution of the United States, and renders your silly little litmus test as nonsense.

[Phssthpok]

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.

It would seem that NM_Shooter and I shall simply have to agree to disagree.

[NM_Shooter]

Yup.. we'll have to disagree.  I also think that reasonable is in the eye of the majority of the beholders... not any one in particular.

[peternap]

It would seem that NM_Shooter and I shall simply have to agree to disagree.

That is what keeps this place enjoyable,

[MountainDon]

Is it unconstitutional to ask a person who looks younger than 21 to show ID to purchase alcohol?
Is it unconstitutional for an officer to pull over a "suspected" drunk driver on the basis of erratic, but not illegal driving?
Is it unconstitutional to ask for a person to show proof of citizenship at an immigration checkpoint in an airport or border crossing?

No, no and no, of course not.

True though, the constitution does not address the age a person is permitted to purchase alcohol, about unsafe operation of a motor vehicle by an intoxicated person, nor does it say what rules should be in place at a port of entry. But then it also does not say anything about a number of other state or federal laws that we have today. And not all of today's laws make sense, some are stupid to me, but maybe not everybody else.

However, none of those three scenarios seem to be unreasonable in today's modern world.  

I think I've said it before; the thing I do not see a lot of people paying attention to with this immigration thing is the simple question of whether or not a person from another country has any right to anything in this country. I say, NO they do not. Until they are present legally in this country they have no rights here at all, and we, the people, have every right to expect our governments to enforce laws or to abolish or amend those laws.

At times I believe the only reason AZ acted on this is to push the federal governments buttons, to get them to get things together, get things moving to enforce the federal laws on immigration.

Call me simple or single minded, but we have to start someplace/somehow.

[Sassy]

I agree with you MtnDon, 

[MountainDon]

I am more speaking of current events and opinions one way or the other, however the topic is off limits per John's policy.

I am sometimes easily confused and sometimes forgetful but all I can remember on the forum off topic area guidelines is that what John said here...
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=7722.msg99229#msg99229
which was...
Use this board to discuss topics not related to building and designing small buildings. This is NOT the place for hate material, racial or religious slurs, or any material attempting to incite violence or spread malicious rumor. If you find such material posted here please report to moderator.

... which I take to mean that we do not approve of the dissemination of actual hate material or religious slurs. I read that as a rather straightforward statement. It should be possible to exchange views and opinions on both history and current news, as long as nobody libels any other person or group of people, or... well I thought John's directive was clear, and still left the choice of discussion topics open.

[John Raabe]

What he said.

Any topic as long as the discussion is thoughtful and respectful.

[OlJarhead]

True though, the constitution does not address the age a person is permitted to purchase alcohol, about unsafe operation of a motor vehicle by an intoxicated person, nor does it say what rules should be in place at a port of entry. But then it also does not say anything about a number of other state or federal laws that we have today. And not all of today's laws make sense, some are stupid to me, but maybe not everybody else.

It does say that what it doesn't say is left to the states and the people.

This is something that is all to often forgotten today.

US Constitution Amendment X
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.

Now from a historical perspective this Amendment was ratified by the founders.  It was the last of the original 10 and became part of the 'bill of rights' (which is just the Amendments of the Constitution itself) in 1791.

Bear in mind that when this was placed in the constitution it was done specifically to make the point that the Constitution LIMITS the Federal government but not the States.

The problem today is that we've moved away from this founding principle and from a judicial standpoint used precedent rather then Constitutional understanding and history to determine if something is 'legal' or not.

There is so much stretching of what can be done by the Federal Government these days (and in the last 100 years) that most have no clue what is actually Constitutional and what is not.  Heck, people still think that Jefferson's letter regarding the separation of Church and State is actually part of the Constitution, which it clearly is not, but that's another issue entirely.

As far as AZ's law goes, it's clear the Federal Government is failing miserably and not enforcing their own laws in this regard and AZ's law merely says that they will -- hardly something for people top get up in arms over -- but then the lack of education and the amount of propaganda people get off MSNBC etc these days is stunning so it's no wonder they have no clue.

Sadly, I don't think the problem will go away or be fixed in the courts (or by rioters).  If we do not stop the rhetoric and start getting educated (as in read history, the Constitution etc) then it is likely the situation will be settled by the use of high speed lead poisoning.

The question is:  are you willing to press the issue until it becomes a show down at high noon?  Because from what I see, that's where we are headed.

[glenn kangiser]

I'll leave it at that then.

[MountainDon]

The question is:  are you willing to press the issue until it becomes a show down at high noon? 

What is meant by that?   It is as important an issue as many, more so than some.


As fas as the constitution and the fact that is was set up to limit federal power and give all else to the states, I understand that. However, the states can not run things like immigration policy.  Immigration is a federal issue and the feds seem to purposely avoid their responsibilities or at least be selective in their enforcement. It's a heck of a way to run a country. That's why I applaud Arizona; they are trying to force the feds to get off their pot and take hold of that responsibility with a firm grip.

[OlJarhead]

The question is:  are you willing to press the issue until it becomes a show down at high noon? 

What is meant by that?   It is as important an issue as many, more so than some.


As fas as the constitution and the fact that is was set up to limit federal power and give all else to the states, I understand that. However, the states can not run things like immigration policy.  Immigration is a federal issue and the feds seem to purposely avoid their responsibilities or at least be selective in their enforcement. It's a heck of a way to run a country. That's why I applaud Arizona; they are trying to force the feds to get off their pot and take hold of that responsibility with a firm grip.

2nd first:  I agree.  The Federal Government must control immigration but in the absence of a Federal Government the States must step in and take control.  In this case I argue there is no Federal Response and their lack thereof demonstrates the need for the States to act -- I support the AZ Law.

High Noon:  I've done a LOT of reading and observing lately and have come to the conclusion that what we see in Greece is coming here ten fold if we do not stop the ratcheting up of the rhetoric.  Firearms sales in the 1st 8-9 months of the Obama Presidency were at record highs -- levels never seen before -- and the anger on both sides is being pushed and fomented pretty much daily by those who want confrontation (whether they know it or not).  In the mean time you have an economic collapse of Global proportions on the way (yes on the way) and the resulting fear and anger combined with the hate being spewed at decent American citizens is going to push them to the breaking point.

I've said before "there's going to be a shooting war in this country if we don't find a way to calm people down" and I'll say it again.  What we're headed for is Bosnia/Serbia ugly if people don't stop hating each other and start agreeing on something.

I'd suggest we agree on the rule of law.

That means we must enforce the law even if we do not like them.  Then, if we do not like them, change them or abolish them but rioting in the name of illegal immigration, health-care etc is only going to ratchet things up and sooner or later those who have not been violent will be pushed to the breaking point.

Today the left has been violent while the Tea Partiers etc have been peaceful.  God help us if they decide they've had enough.

Those of us of the Libertarian vent prefer the rule of law with a lot less laws -- perhaps it's time we call for peaceful protest and condemn ANYONE who acts violently.

So I ask all on the left: will you condemn the violence and commend the Tea Parties for their peaceful demonstration of their right to assemble?

[Pox Eclipse]

It does say that what it doesn't say is left to the states and the people.

This is something that is all to often forgotten today.

US Constitution Amendment X
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.

Now from a historical perspective this Amendment was ratified by the founders.  It was the last of the original 10 and became part of the 'bill of rights' (which is just the Amendments of the Constitution itself) in 1791.

Bear in mind that when this was placed in the constitution it was done specifically to make the point that the Constitution LIMITS the Federal government but not the States.

The problem today is that we've moved away from this founding principle and from a judicial standpoint used precedent rather then Constitutional understanding and history to determine if something is 'legal' or not.

There is so much stretching of what can be done by the Federal Government these days (and in the last 100 years) that most have no clue what is actually Constitutional and what is not.  Heck, people still think that Jefferson's letter regarding the separation of Church and State is actually part of the Constitution, which it clearly is not, but that's another issue entirely.

And the stretching of the Constitution occurs on both sides of the political aisle. 

Case in point:  Do you believe the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to limit the power of the states to regulate the sale of health insurance within their own state?

No?

Then why are conservatives in such a hurry to allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines?  Doing so is nothing short of the federal government telling the states they may not regulate insurance that is for sale in other states, yet this is a mainstay in the conservative alternative to the Democrat's health care reform bill.

It is very apparent that the Constitution is only sacred when is protects your political views, but is fungible when it gets in the way.

[NM_Shooter]

Pox, I don't understand your point.  

Are you arguing that health insurance should only be supplied by the state, or by someone in the state of a person's residence?

I'm missing something here.  The insurance that you are referring to as being provided by an out of state source... is the out of state source a private entity, or is it another state the source of insurance?

Why would you not want insurance companies to compete?  Competition makes for better products.

Can you provide reference to the conservative plan you are arguing against?   I'd like to read it.

 

[OlJarhead]

It does say that what it doesn't say is left to the states and the people.

This is something that is all to often forgotten today.

US Constitution Amendment X
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.

Now from a historical perspective this Amendment was ratified by the founders.  It was the last of the original 10 and became part of the 'bill of rights' (which is just the Amendments of the Constitution itself) in 1791.

Bear in mind that when this was placed in the constitution it was done specifically to make the point that the Constitution LIMITS the Federal government but not the States.

The problem today is that we've moved away from this founding principle and from a judicial standpoint used precedent rather then Constitutional understanding and history to determine if something is 'legal' or not.

There is so much stretching of what can be done by the Federal Government these days (and in the last 100 years) that most have no clue what is actually Constitutional and what is not.  Heck, people still think that Jefferson's letter regarding the separation of Church and State is actually part of the Constitution, which it clearly is not, but that's another issue entirely.

And the stretching of the Constitution occurs on both sides of the political aisle. 

Case in point:  Do you believe the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to limit the power of the states to regulate the sale of health insurance within their own state?

No?

Then why are conservatives in such a hurry to allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines?  Doing so is nothing short of the federal government telling the states they may not regulate insurance that is for sale in other states, yet this is a mainstay in the conservative alternative to the Democrat's health care reform bill.

It is very apparent that the Constitution is only sacred when is protects your political views, but is fungible when it gets in the way.

Oh you and I agree on this Pox.  BOTH sides are guilty as charged.  But remember, your chatting with a Libertarian.

Personally I think the Supreme court has been wrong on a number of decisions (some reversed some not) and the Executive and Legislative branches have been weak in balancing the powers (we have a three headed system).

[OlJarhead]

Pox, I don't understand your point.  

Are you arguing that health insurance should only be supplied by the state, or by someone in the state of a person's residence?

I'm missing something here.  The insurance that you are referring to as being provided by an out of state source... is the out of state source a private entity, or is it another state the source of insurance?

Why would you not want insurance companies to compete?  Competition makes for better products.

Can you provide reference to the conservative plan you are arguing against?   I'd like to read it.

 

I'm not sure either -- I was agreeing with the statement that both sides abuse the Constitution.

As far as insurance in states go -- that's the point of the 'make regular' part of the commerce clause.  The Federal Government SHOULD be insisting that insurance companies are not prohibited from provising insurance across state lines.

Indeed, it's nonsensical to think otherwise - -the supply and demand system if allowed to work would mean that prices would go down due to competition.

Speaking of which, it's nonsense to assume free market principles have been involved in health care for some time.  Example:  locally there is a battle between two hospitals, one publicly funded, the other not, to get the states permission to ad beds.

Ya, that's right THE STATE has to approve the increased beds....um, where is the free market there?

The rule of law is abandoned in favor of the rule of men.

[Pox Eclipse]

Pox, I don't understand your point. 

Are you arguing that health insurance should only be supplied by the state, or by someone in the state of a person's residence?

I'm missing something here.  The insurance that you are referring to as being provided by an out of state source... is the out of state source a private entity, or is it another state the source of insurance?

Why would you not want insurance companies to compete?  Competition makes for better products.

Can you provide reference to the conservative plan you are arguing against?   I'd like to read it.

   

The conservative plan wants the federal government to deny the states the authority to regulate the sale of insurance within their own state.    If Illinois wants to impose more stringent requirements on private insurance providers than Mississippi, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the power to prevent them from imposing stronger regulations?

I oppose totally free markets.  Total freedom would permit marketing of adulterated food and fake pharmaceuticals, so even you must agree some regulation is necessary.  We are only differ on the degree.  Each state has the right to impose regulations as it sees fit, and there are no constitutional grounds for the federal government to deny them that right.

[NM_Shooter]

The conservative plan wants the federal government to deny the states the authority to regulate the sale of insurance within their own state.    If Illinois wants to impose more stringent requirements on private insurance providers than Mississippi, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the power to prevent them from imposing stronger regulations?

I oppose totally free markets.  Total freedom would permit marketing of adulterated food and fake pharmaceuticals, so even you must agree some regulation is necessary.  We are only differ on the degree.  Each state has the right to impose regulations as it sees fit, and there are no constitutional grounds for the federal government to deny them that right.

Hmmm.... I don't want anybody to regulate the sale of insurance anywhere.  I want the feds and the state out of it.  I don't want stronger regulations in ANYTHING.  I do believe that regulation by form of certification is required (such as FDA purity of pharmaceuticals, certification for physicians and health facilities, FAA safety, highway standards), but I oppose regulation generally, and especially as it applies to commerce trade.  A good example is the methanol crap that that  is mandated as an additive in all gas here in NM. 

I don't like being told what I have to buy and from whom I have to buy it.  I like even less being told that I have to buy it for someone else.

[OlJarhead]

The conservative plan wants the federal government to deny the states the authority to regulate the sale of insurance within their own state.    If Illinois wants to impose more stringent requirements on private insurance providers than Mississippi, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the power to prevent them from imposing stronger regulations?

I oppose totally free markets.  Total freedom would permit marketing of adulterated food and fake pharmaceuticals, so even you must agree some regulation is necessary.  We are only differ on the degree.  Each state has the right to impose regulations as it sees fit, and there are no constitutional grounds for the federal government to deny them that right.

Hmmm.... I don't want anybody to regulate the sale of insurance anywhere.  I want the feds and the state out of it.  I don't want stronger regulations in ANYTHING.  I do believe that regulation by form of certification is required (such as FDA purity of pharmaceuticals, certification for physicians and health facilities, FAA safety, highway standards), but I oppose regulation generally, and especially as it applies to commerce trade.  A good example is the methanol crap that that  is mandated as an additive in all gas here in NM. 

I don't like being told what I have to buy and from whom I have to buy it.  I like even less being told that I have to buy it for someone else.

You are speaking my language!

[Pox Eclipse]

Hmmm.... I don't want anybody to regulate the sale of insurance anywhere.  I want the feds and the state out of it.  I don't want stronger regulations in ANYTHING.  I do believe that regulation by form of certification is required (such as FDA purity of pharmaceuticals, certification for physicians and health facilities, FAA safety, highway standards), but I oppose regulation generally, and especially as it applies to commerce trade.  A good example is the methanol crap that that  is mandated as an additive in all gas here in NM. 

I don't like being told what I have to buy and from whom I have to buy it.  I like even less being told that I have to buy it for someone else.

That is fine, you have 50 states to choose from, there must be one that is more or less to your liking. But individual states have a constitutional right to regulate insurance within their own state.  If you want to live in a state that allows rescission (cancelling an insurance policy when someone gets an expensive disease), I agree, that should be your choice.  I disagree that the federal government has the constitutional power to force all states to allow rescission, just because your state does.

[NM_Shooter]

OK... back to immigration.. Throw the illegals out!   

[MountainDon]

If you want to live in a state that allows rescission (cancelling an insurance policy when someone gets an expensive disease), I agree, that should be your choice.

Sort of drifting away from the topic as listed, but why would anyone want to live in a state that allows insurance companies the power to willy-nilly cancel a policy?  Most companies, it would seem, be all to happy to be able to do that.


As far as regulation of the insurance industry within a geographic area, there is no benefit to anyone when the list to choose from is artificially restricted. That is, no body benefits except for the companies who have less competition.


As long as we tolerate drift, I wonder why most of us live in the states we do? I know of a couple retirees who have selected Nevada because of no personal income tax. I think I'll spin that thought off after I figure out what's for dinner.