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.
What do the contents of the constitution have to do with someone's personal feelings. One can't always alter how they feel on any given issue based upon a legal document.
My problem is not with the constitution itself, but with those who seek to use it as a Bible rather than a tool open for interpretation. All things can and do change with time. You can't expect to effectively consult the ideas of Thomas Paine, for example (not a constitutional reference) when deciding how to deal with a cyber terrorist network.
Fine, you can have whatever personal feelings that you like but that's as far as they should be able to go if they are unconstitutional. I could personally believe that you should not have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean the Federal government should be involved in taking it away from you.
Essentially, you're allowed to have incorrect opinions but you're not allowed to instill them upon me.
As for the Constitution being the Bible - how would one "interpret" the 4th amendment? It's pretty specific.
You might feel differently if you didn't look like a white, high-income suburbanite, though. You might feel differently if you were the sort of person who gets profiled. It's frustrating, man.
i think it should just be a reality of life. my mother in law lived in spain for a while and she said that you had to carry id at all times or they lock you up. so you did it. i dont think its too much to ask for in order to protect this country from illegals.
Legally, yes. Especially since the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a list of rights government can't take away from you.
but laws change. im sure there are laws you want changes as well. so legally you need to follow them, but in discussing your opinions about them you should feel free to criticize them.
Fine, you can have whatever personal feelings that you like but that's as far as they should be able to go if they are unconstitutional. I could personally believe that you should not have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean the Federal government should be involved in taking it away from you.
Essentially, you're allowed to have incorrect opinions but you're not allowed to instill them upon me.
As for the Constitution being the Bible - how would one "interpret" the 4th amendment? It's pretty specific.
You seem to think though that ultimately, what a situation calls for (in this case, the Morristown police using identification techniques against illegal immigrants) should be ignored in favor of blind loyalty to the constitution. Situations change and laws must evolve.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,654,149 times
Reputation: 1410
I'm not a lawyer, but I think what this issue comes down to is prior restraint as others have mentioned, and the right to be free of prior restraint is a right that is protected by the fourth amendment, and it is granted to all residents of the United States whether they are illegal or not. According to the constitution, a cop (or whatever other state agent) has to have a reason to stop you if you are engaged in a moving violation or doing whatever else that might be illegal, and this due vigilance would include checking your ID. The problem with deputizing cops to be de facto INS agents is that issues of prior restraint might go out the window; people may be targeted just because they appear to be illegal immigrants.
Personally, I don't want to live in a state or a country where superficial matters like skin color become the bases for whether I will be stopped for a minor traffic violation or not; this is an issue that has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. It is true that the matter of legal vs. illegal immigration needs to be discussed among rational adults who want to talk about it in a interesting forum; it's just that whether or not M-Town cops get to be the ones who define the issues through who they arrest or not is a subject that should be open for debate. If we really want to have a discussion about the legal status of a variety of immigrant groups, then let's just say so up front. The former--talking about the legality of the immigrant status of a variety of groups, how we feel about such legality, where we would place our own ancestors on the spectrum of immigration--is really what we are talking about. Let's try to stick with that, no?
You seem to think though that ultimately, what a situation calls for (in this case, the Morristown police using identification techniques against illegal immigrants) should be ignored in favor of blind loyalty to the constitution. Situations change and laws must evolve.
Why even have a Constitution if you will not follow it? Blindly follow it? Again, the 4th amendment is pretty specific.
im sure we can come up with probably cause for checking someone's id.
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.
