Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems they are both constitutional on the surface, based on the status on a person, and require a local law enforcement to work for the federal government. They also require an officer to enforce a law he may be morally against.
Huh? You mean previously officers were only required to enforce those laws which they felt were just?
They have to enforce all laws. I'm sure some officers who have to escort women safely into an abortion clinic or in the past when officers were used to bar black children from entering a school thought this was against their moral character.
The point is, is this law, like the fugitive slave law predicated by an individuals set of circumstances beyond his control. You can argue that an individual chooses to cross the border there by breaking our law. But can you argue that he is in control of the circumstances which make breaking our law a last resort to insure the survival of his family.
And like the fugitive slave law, "papers" can be forged and were on many occasions. I would assume that forging papers will be fairly easy today, and may already be inspiring a cottage industry. Does the officer have to detain a person while his papers are checked for authenticity?
Last edited by thriftylefty; 04-30-2010 at 11:14 AM..
AHHHH what part of Illegal do you not understand? (as in alien)
The reason I didn't post this in the Politics forum is because I am not looking for punditry, merely a comparative view of this law with what might be historically a similar law
It was illegal for a slave to stop an over seer from beating his wife. It was illegal for him to hide his children from a sale. A slave had no legal right to deprive his owner of his legal property through escape. And if I was a plantation owner I would probably also beat the daylights out of a slave who would disobey the law, because I could, legally
Comparing this to a slave law gives us an idea of what your intention is for this subject, based on the potential for an inflamatory comparison. So take this garbage to the politics forum with the rest of the crazies, we know exactly what you are trying to do! Why don't you compare it to the former 55 MPH federal speeding law? Or federal drug laws? or child pornography laws?
It's a law, period! Police get paid to enforce laws. Weather they are right or wrong is up to the citizens to decide in terms of electing and appointing government representatives. Last I checked it was illegal for a foreigner to reside in this country undocumented. Last I checked slavery was illegal.
And all the justification you have listed - "circumstances beyond his control" and "forged papers". All I can say is what the f**k are you talking about? No, don't answer. I don't even want to know. THere is no subject here even remotely related to history.
Comparing this to a slave law gives us an idea of what your intention is for this subject, based on the potential for an inflamatory comparison. So take this garbage to the politics forum with the rest of the crazies, we know exactly what you are trying to do! Why don't you compare it to the former 55 MPH federal speeding law? Or federal drug laws? or child pornography laws?
It's a law, period! Police get paid to enforce laws. Weather they are right or wrong is up to the citizens to decide in terms of electing and appointing government representatives. Last I checked it was illegal for a foreigner to reside in this country undocumented. Last I checked slavery was illegal.
Okay again class, why is it we don't have a fugitive slave law today?
And for the record I have never thought of the institution of slavery as nothing more than the embryonic stage of our current labor system. So to me the fugitive slave law was tantamount to a mine worker leaving his job to go work in the auto industry and law enforcement obliged to return him to the company he previously worked for. You can line all law breakers up in firing squad for all I care. I look at all laws abstractly
IMO I think maybe some time in the future crossing the border from South America America to North America on foot will be considered more of a hard ship than a crime.
Last edited by thriftylefty; 04-30-2010 at 01:41 PM..
THere is no subject here even remotely related to history.
If you don't know the intricacies of the fugitive slave law and the constitutionality of it, the turmoil it caused in three or four political groups, Nativist, Abolitionist, Know nothings, Democrats, Republicans and Whigs.....(insert profanity here)
They have to enforce all laws. I'm sure some officers who have to escort women safely into an abortion clinic or in the past when officers were used to bar black children from entering a school thought this was against their moral character
You have yet to explain the before/after distinction which troubles you about this law. Your first complaint was that it required law enforcement officers to enforce laws with which they might not be in agreement. Above you are admitting that this has always been the case.
So...what is the basis for your complaint? They are now doing what they have always done....
The fight against the Fugitive Slave Law was not handled among those Northerners charged with enforcing it, they had no choice. It was handled by nullifying Northern juries who could...and did..do something about it. Regardless of the evidence in a case, regardless of proof of ownership and establishing the slave status of the "fugitive", Northern juries refused to convict.
All that makes jury nullification sound like a valuable weapon for a democracy, except of course it also was employed for less glorious causes. Throughout the Jim Crow period, Southern juries tended to ignore all evidence which supported a black person's claims in a trial, as well as ignoring all flaws, no matter how obvious, in the testimony of white people.
The true issue which you have raised here is the eternal conflict which arises between justice and the law. The law is the tool we have crafted in order to bring about justice, but what do we do in a situation where the application of the law will result in an injustice? Are we obligated to use the tool no matter the outcome, or are we free to disregard the tool when it seems unsuitable for the desired outcome? And if we are free to ignore the tool when we think an exception needs to be made, does that not reduce the value and meaning of the tool to almost nothing?
There is no happy resolution for the above, only perpetual argument and the serial introduction of examples where nullification produced a just, or unjust, outcome.
I'm always non selected for jury duty because I raise the above issue when I am asked if I would have any problems following the judge's instructions. I tell the court that I believe my highest duty is to the goal...justice..and that if I found myself in a situation where I thought that the law and justice were in conflict, I would ignore the law in favor of justice. In short, I'm telling them that I plan to treat instructions from the bench as optional and the laws as suggestions. It is always.."Thanks Mr. Stander, see you later" after that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.