Carlos Santanta embarrasses himself at yesterdays Braves game. (lawyer, theater)

[Bullbear]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

I couldn't possibly care less about what Santana says, I'm just annoyed to the backteeth that my money will be used to try to defend a law that's patently unconstitutional on it's face. I'm so tired of politicians creating stuff that they know will be overturned just to get votes from the ignorant and uninformed. Every constitutional scholar on the planet has stated that this law is unconstitutional. Arizona has lost millions in revenue from people boycotting the state, and Georgia jumps on board anyway. I really do think we need a constitutional amendment to prevent legislators from writing bills that they know are unconstitutional. They're a waste of time, money and simply make the state look stupider than all get out.

So let me see. Anyone who happens to agree with/back this law does so because they are ignorant and uninformed? A fascinating analysis, and so "tolerant" of you!

[RandyWatson13]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

I couldn't possibly care less about what Santana says, I'm just annoyed to the backteeth that my money will be used to try to defend a law that's patently unconstitutional on it's face. I'm so tired of politicians creating stuff that they know will be overturned just to get votes from the ignorant and uninformed. Every constitutional scholar on the planet has stated that this law is unconstitutional. Arizona has lost millions in revenue from people boycotting the state, and Georgia jumps on board anyway. I really do think we need a constitutional amendment to prevent legislators from writing bills that they know are unconstitutional. They're a waste of time, money and simply make the state look stupider than all get out.

Yup. Kuck wouldn't even break a sweat with it. This is why I posted this part in post 15 of mine

Originally Posted by RandyWatson13

^^ That is b/c the issue is so complex people are bashing and defending the bill without really examining the core problems so they can come up with true solutions. There is an issue with illegal immigration, PERIOD. .

And then you read a post from the thread starter below which is exactly what I stated.

Originally Posted by suprascooby22

Can you please provide a link where "every constitutional scholar" has stated that this law is unconstitutional. I havent seen nor heard one thing about this and this bill has gotten alot of press lately. All I have heard is the threat of a few boycotts.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by Bullbear

Nope. I read it. It wasnt very long so I managed to get through it.

Still see a PR effort attached to a baseball game. Not sure why the article would make me see it any differently.

Of course it's a PR effort, but that doesn't mean there won't, or shouldn't, be political speech during the event.

[neil0311]

I say...."shut up and sing" and keep your politics to yourself. He was hired to sing, not to give his views on immigration.

[RoslynHolcomb]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I say...."shut up and sing" and keep your politics to yourself. He was hired to sing, not to give his views on immigration.

Actually Santana doesn't sing. He plays guitar, but he doesn't sing.

[RandyWatson13]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

Actually Santana doesn't sing. He plays guitar, but he doesn't sing.

lol this thread is the funny

[JPD]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I say...."shut up and sing" and keep your politics to yourself. He was hired to sing, not to give his views on immigration.

This is wrong on lots of different levels.

First of all, although Santana does sing sometimes, he is known as a guitarist, not a singer.

Second, he was not hired to sing. In fact, he has never been hired to sing in his life. In this case, he was invited to receive a political award, and make some statements relevant to the award and the theme of the event.

Third, nobody should have to keep their politics to themselves, particularly at an event which bills itself unambiguously as a political event.

[RoslynHolcomb]

Originally Posted by suprascooby22

Can you please provide a link where "every constitutional scholar" has stated that this law is unconstitutional. I havent seen nor heard one thing about this and this bill has gotten alot of press lately. All I have heard is the threat of a few boycotts.

Sorry, I've got a newborn so I don't have time to be your research assistant, but if you Google "constitutionality of Arizona immigration law" you'll find reams of information. Essentially it comes down to the fact that states don't have the right to legislate as it pertains to foreign affairs. ie, just as Georgia can't set up its own embassy in China, it has no right to make it against Georgia law for Chinese people to be here illegally. Only the feds can do that.

[Bullbear]

Originally Posted by JPD

Of course it's a PR effort, but that doesn't mean there won't, or shouldn't, be political speech during the event.

And the fact that you happen to agree with said political speech is not relevant, presumably.

[Bullbear]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

Sorry, I've got a newborn so I don't have time to be your research assistant, but if you Google "constitutionality of Arizona immigration law" you'll find reams of information. Essentially it comes down to the fact that states don't have the right to legislate as it pertains to foreign affairs. ie, just as Georgia can't set up its own embassy in China, it has no right to make it against Georgia law for Chinese people to be here illegally. Only the feds can do that.

Well, if you can google it and come up with reams of info, then it must, by god, pure gospel. Who needs real lawyering? LOL