So let me get this straight: the USA is going to sue the state of AZ?

[BeeR]

Pardon if a duplicate thread. How bizarro can you get?

 

This isn't an "anti obama" thing, just seems like a ridiculous overreaction, not to mention really absurd. Y/N?

[Perchoutofwater]

This is just stupid on so many levels. 1. Arizona never would have had to pass a law like this if the federal government would do what it is constitutionally mandated to do. 2. The Arizona law mirrors the federal law. 3. It is a waste of tax payer money, as there are already numerous suits filed against this legislation from varying organizations, so why do Obama and Holder feel they need to pile on? Let the other suits play out, and save some money.

 

I bet Obama is glad he got his La Raza girl on The Supreme Court, as that is probably where this is headed.

[Perchoutofwater]

Here is an interesting article on the affects of Oklahoma's immigration law that they passed in 2007.

[rattsass]

Unconstitutional and treason.

[bushwacked]

The Arizona law mirrors the federal law.

 

This right wing talking point isn't an accurate statement.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

This is just stupid on so many levels. 1. Arizona never would have had to pass a law like this if the federal government would do what it is constitutionally mandated to do. 2. The Arizona law mirrors the federal law. 3. It is a waste of tax payer money, as there are already numerous suits filed against this legislation from varying organizations, so why do Obama and Holder feel they need to pile on? Let the other suits play out, and save some money.

 

I bet Obama is glad he got his La Raza girl on The Supreme Court, as that is probably where this is headed.

 

 

I'm curious regarding point #3. Do you also feel this it is a waste of tax payers money to have more than one state challenge the legality of the new health care bill?

[rattsass]

I'm curious regarding point #3. Do you also feel this it is a waste of tax payers money to have more than one state challenge the legality of the new health care bill?

All the feds have to do is enforce their own laws and there is no waste at all. Unless I am missing something here.

[tazinib1]

And I would love a list of all the Senators/Congressmen that approve. I can almost gaurantee that the woefully horrendous over-reaction to this state bill will be the downfall of those that oppose. The tide is turning in favor of Arizona and rightfully so as I predicted on its inception. This is the direction our government/states are headed. And rightfully so. Don't tell us you are running on an immigration reform platform, do nothing, then expect the country//state to support you, while balk at somebody that takes the steps you should have done by now.

[SEC=UGA]

The fed will win this lawsuit. In regard to immigration laws, the courts will find that it is a federal power and not a power reserved to the states, end of story, kinda like fed regulation of interstate commerce. But, I admire AX for at least bringing this issue to the forefront.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

Unconstitutional and treason.

 

 

I really wish you nutjobs would stop overusing the word treason. It gets really tiresome.

But if you are going to insist that everything obama does is treason, could you at least justify it here?

I am having a hard time seeing it

[rattsass]

I really wish you nutjobs would stop overusing the word treason. It gets really tiresome.

But if you are going to insist that everything obama does is treason, could you at least justify it here?

I am having a hard time seeing it

So I assume you are not arguing against "unconstitutional?"

 

Wiki:

 

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents

 

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, you would probably consider him a nutjob too. So I will take that as a compliment. Thank you.

Edited June 20, 2010 by rattsass

[wiegie]

Wiki:

 

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents

uh, he asked you about your use of the word "treason" not "traitor".

Edited June 20, 2010 by wiegie

[rattsass]

uh, he asked you about your use of the word "treason" not "traitor".

Okay, no problem.

 

Unconstitutional and traitorous.

 

Some of you people do love to split hairs when you think it serves your purpose.

Edited June 20, 2010 by rattsass

[cre8tiff]

Okay, no problem.

 

Unconstitutional and traitorous.

 

Some of you people do love to split hairs when you think it serves your purpose.

 

I think the issue is you right wingnuts have historically been such whiny little beeyotches that you have to immediately thrown down the absolute most incendiary and drastic of terms to describe anyone or anything that opposes your skewed view of the world.

 

When Bush was in power, he sucked ass, but no one except the farthest left wingnuts said things like this. But this kind of incendiary, and divisive rhetoric has diffused throughout the Republicans platform and agenda, and frankly, it erodes any salient points you may have.

[rattsass]

I think the issue is you right wingnuts have historically been such whiny little beeyotches that you have to immediately thrown down the absolute most incendiary and drastic of terms to describe anyone or anything that opposes your skewed view of the world.

 

When Bush was in power, he sucked ass, but no one except the farthest left wingnuts said things like this. But this kind of incendiary, and divisive rhetoric has diffused throughout the Republicans platform and agenda, and frankly, it erodes any salient points you may have.

I voted for Obama, and voted against GW Bush twice. Next baseless argument?

 

P.S. I was one of Bush's most fervent critics, before, during, and after his tenure.

 

I call a turd a turd.

Edited June 20, 2010 by rattsass

[rattsass]

So basically what you are saying is that I have been on the right side (your side) right up until this moment in time. The only difference in me and you my friend, is that I have realized more quickly than the rest of you lefties, that Obama was a huge mistake. I'm just kicking you all in the head until you realize it too. No need to hate.

Edited June 20, 2010 by rattsass

[Savage Beatings]

uh, he asked you about your use of the word "treason" not "traitor".

 

Some of you people do love to split hairs when you think it serves your purpose.

 

Yeah Wiegie I have to say that all other arguments aside, this was definitely a fairly lame gotcha! Traitor is to Treason, as Murderer is to Murder. Did he really need to clarify that distinction for you?

[caddyman]

I think the issue is you right wingnuts have historically been such whiny little beeyotches that you have to immediately thrown down the absolute most incendiary and drastic of terms to describe anyone or anything that opposes your skewed view of the world.

 

When Bush was in power, he sucked ass, but no one except the farthest left wingnuts said things like this. But this kind of incendiary, and divisive rhetoric has diffused throughout the Republicans platform and agenda, and frankly, it erodes any salient points you may have.

 

Total nonsense and you know it. The rhetoric during the Bush years from MANY OF YOU HERE was every bit as bad if not worse. For you to try and say otherwise is a joke. The best part of your arguement is that Ratsass is not a rightwing nut job. You may now crawl back in the hole you came from.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Total nonsense and you know it. The rhetoric during the Bush years from MANY OF YOU HERE was every bit as bad if not worse. For you to try and say otherwise is a joke. The best part of your arguement is that Ratsass is not a rightwing nut job. You may now crawl back in the hole you came from.

 

Apples and oranges. With immigration reform you've got legit constitutional questions of state versus federal power. You can absolutely argue that the feds have not done their job in enforcing border security, etc and I totally agree with you. Is that treason though? I think not.

 

Now going back to the Bush admin, you've got actions like lying to the UN about Iraq's WMD program and then subsequent actions like outing a NOC to try discredit her husband for pointing out the fabrication of evidence to go to war. Now is this treason? IMHO absolutely.

[cliaz]

I'm curious regarding point #3. Do you also feel this it is a waste of tax payers money to have more than one state challenge the legality of the new health care bill?

 

Each state is a separate entity with their own laws. The federal government attempting to, once again, crap on the constitution is a waste of tax dollars. They cannot force a state to change a law that the Federal government doesn't have authority over.

[wiegie]

Yeah Wiegie I have to say that all other arguments aside, this was definitely a fairly lame gotcha! Traitor is to Treason, as Murderer is to Murder. Did he really need to clarify that distinction for you?

from wiki, this is what the constitution says is treason:

treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

It falls upon Ratsass to say where Obama has done this.

 

On a side note, I wonder if the reason Ratsass used the wiki quote for traitor instead of the one for treason because the entry for treason states:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Each state is a separate entity with their own laws. The federal government attempting to, once again, crap on the constitution is a waste of tax dollars. They cannot force a state to change a law that the Federal government doesn't have authority over.

 

Sorry, but international borders and immigration fall under the scope of federal authority, so they absolutely have authority over a state trying to come in and usurp their area of authority. It's Arizona that is trying to crap on the Constitution here.

[tazinib1]

. It's Arizona that is trying to crap on the Constitution here.

 

How is giving police the right to ask for legal documentation crapping on the constitution? People seem to forget Illegal Aliens DO NOT HAVE any constitutional rights cause there NOT CITIZENS!!

[gbpfan1231]

Sorry, but international borders and immigration fall under the scope of federal authority, so they absolutely have authority over a state trying to come in and usurp their area of authority. It's Arizona that is trying to crap on the Constitution here.

[wiegie]

People seem to forget Illegal Aliens DO NOT HAVE any constitutional rights cause there NOT CITIZENS!!

People probably seem to forget it because it is simply not true.