Nebraska Town Votes to Banish Illegal Immigrants (visa, married, Mexicans)
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.
In the federal government, laws are always voted on by representatives. The principle is that the people do not directly vote on laws. A representative can say "Gee, I know my constituents want X, but that would be a terrible idea, so I am going to vote against X" - Even if he or she loses the election because of his or her decision, his or her replacement can come to the same conclusion. And again and again.
And then there's the Supreme Court. The people do not elect supreme court members, so the supreme court can shut down instances of "majority rules" without fear of retaliation from the people.
The principles do differ in individual states- for instance in California propositions are voted on directly by the people, and in Texas same with propositions and state supreme court judges. But the federal system was designed so these traits are impossible in its system.
In regards to "Just because some minority group doesn't like them is not sufficient reason to not abide by them or to change them." - This is why the supreme court judges and the representative members decide whether the complaints of the minority have merit or not. They determine whether the minority is right or wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
You forget that we are also a nation of laws that are either voted on by the majority or those who represent us. In that case our government is obligated to follow them until or if they are changed. Just because some minority group doesn't like them is not sufficient reason to not abide by them or to change them.
In the federal government, laws are always voted on by representatives. The principle is that the people do not directly vote on laws. A representative can say "Gee, I know my constituents want X, but that would be a terrible idea, so I am going to vote against X" - Even if he or she loses the election because of his or her decision, his or her replacement can come to the same conclusion. And again and again.
And then there's the Supreme Court. The people do not elect supreme court members, so the supreme court can shut down instances of "majority rules" without fear of retaliation from the people.
The principles do differ in individual states- for instance in California propositions are voted on directly by the people, and in Texas same with propositions and state supreme court judges. But the federal system was designed so these traits are impossible in its system.
In regards to "Just because some minority group doesn't like them is not sufficient reason to not abide by them or to change them." - This is why the supreme court judges and the representative members decide whether the complaints of the minority have merit or not. They determine whether the minority is right or wrong.
I don't see any minority group or anyone else challenging our immigration laws in the Supreme Court and they have been around for decades now. Reason is that they are not discriminatory to some minorities who may just not like them. The laws are about illegal foreigners in our country, not about citizens.
I don't see any minority group or anyone else challenging our immigration laws in the Supreme Court and they have been around for decades now. Reason is that they are not discriminatory to some minorities who may just not like them. The laws are about illegal foreigners in our country, not about citizens.
This one simple fact seems to be far too difficult for the criminal invaders' cheer squads to understand!
Why is there such a concerted effort to file law suits against citizens who are merely seeking ways to enforce the existing laws?
The stench of far reaching and entrenched corruption is sickening!
.
If the minority groups are not challenging federal laws, then they are not challenging those federal laws. But they are challenging the state laws, so it would be prudent to review their positions and arguments and decide whether they are correct or not (and it would be helpful to write a civil, detailed response on why those points of view are right or wrong). Some minority groups may only be challenging SB 1070, and some may be also challenging federal laws, but they may be doing so for different reasons.
All people within the United States are subject to the constitution, even people here illegally. For instance the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment is not waived on illegal immigrants. A state can't, say, put a check forger to death by drawing and quartering just because the guy is an illegal who crossed the US-Mexico border through a stretch of desert by foot (and so the state decides that the Constitution and the laws of the USA do not protect him). The check forger is protected by the constitution and the U.S. laws even though he is an illegal. Yes, that is an extreme example, but this also applies to more mundane aspects like proper warrant and arrest procedures, legal representation in court, etc.
Also laws targeting or purportedly targeting illegals can be used to harass legal residents or citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
I don't see any minority group or anyone else challenging our immigration laws in the Supreme Court and they have been around for decades now. Reason is that they are not discriminatory to some minorities who may just not like them. The laws are about illegal foreigners in our country, not about citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meemy
This one simple fact seems to be far too difficult for the criminal invaders' cheer squads to understand!
Why is there such a concerted effort to file law suits against citizens who are merely seeking ways to enforce the existing laws?
The stench of far reaching and entrenched corruption is sickening!
.
I don't care,sticks & stones. I voted for Obama, but his total refusal to listen to the overwhelming majority of ALL Americans on the issue of illegal immigrants really ticks me off.
That refusal to listen encompasses most issues.
His opinion is we don't know what is best for ourselves- he knows better.
This concept is to a degree an inherent part of the republic system of government. It's not "Obama" or "big government" - it's "republic" - The republic form of government is not so powerful that it becomes a big brother, but from time to time it can decide "we don't know what is best for ourselves- he knows better" because the representatives in the government discover that they do know better than the people, and so the situation of "tyranny of the majority" is avoided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
That refusal to listen encompasses most issues.
His opinion is we don't know what is best for ourselves- he knows better.
If the minority groups are not challenging federal laws, then they are not challenging those federal laws. But they are challenging the state laws, so it would be prudent to review their positions and arguments and decide whether they are correct or not (and it would be helpful to write a civil, detailed response on why those points of view are right or wrong). Some minority groups may only be challenging SB 1070, and some may be also challenging federal laws, but they may be doing so for different reasons.
All people within the United States are subject to the constitution, even people here illegally. For instance the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment is not waived on illegal immigrants. A state can't, say, put a check forger to death by drawing and quartering just because the guy is an illegal who crossed the US-Mexico border through a stretch of desert by foot (and so the state decides that the Constitution and the laws of the USA do not protect him). The check forger is protected by the constitution and the U.S. laws even though he is an illegal. Yes, that is an extreme example, but this also applies to more mundane aspects like proper warrant and arrest procedures, legal representation in court, etc.
Also laws targeting or purportedly targeting illegals can be used to harass legal residents or citizens.
And that last statement is a ridiculous argument. If that were to be given merit then no LE officer could question white males for a crime committed by a white male. Even after questioning innocent white males would go free so what is the big deal. I don't call that harassment but LE using what tools they have to enforce the law.
This one simple fact seems to be far too difficult for the criminal invaders' cheer squads to understand!
Why is there such a concerted effort to file law suits against citizens who are merely seeking ways to enforce the existing laws?
The stench of far reaching and entrenched corruption is sickening!
.
tha ilegal aliens and buddys
are scared to death
that tha party is over
an they will be booted out
of tha usa soon
very soon
specialy with this double dip
recesion
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.
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.
