"Reasonable Suspicion" could allow Arizona cops to pull you over

[Texicannibus]

My understanding is this law specifically states that you must be already in the process of talking to the police or interacting with them before this law comes into effect. So if you are pulled over your asked to provide ID... then if no ID proof that your a citzen assuming there is reasonable suspicion that ones not legal. The law specifically excluds racial profiling. Lots of disinformation out there right now. I need to actually read it myself since Ive heard two totally different interpretations.

 

[Texicannibus]

I would like to add my opinion on this law in general.

First it is the duty of the federal goverment to handle national security matters like border security. Unfortunately that duty has not been upheld and border states as well as most other states at this point have some sort of illegal immigration issues. When the federal goverment fails a state on something pertaining to its security the state has a inherent right to address the issue. I believe that is what Arizona is attempting to do.

The bill as I understand it is written to mirror federal law. Idea being to give the state and local authorities the ability to enforce law that is not being enforced by federal authorities.

This bill is being verbally challenged by its detractors yet no papers have been filed claiming it to be unconstitutional. Chances are they will have to wait for a case that appears to be 'profiling' before they can file a claim. The law itself is not unconstitutional but the enforcement of it could be.

Compare this to conservatives who filed papers within days of the healthcare bill being passed claiming (rightfully IMO) that it is unconstitutional.

Only here in the US can making it illegal to be a illegal immigrant can make headlines... Look at Mexico's immigration policy.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I'm with hkush-SS is a massive ponzi scheme and is just one more way that the crooks in gov steal from those they work for-
LOL-I bet you can't wait to retire on SS in the USA can you sam?

I don't live in the USA, so I doubt I ever will. SS here in the Netherlands is in ok shape. Not that I need it.....

I invested all my billions in USA Real Estate, ENRON, mortgage banks, the stock market like GM, I must at least still have a few millions left.....
-SamS

 

[Burt]

"I don't live in the USA, so I doubt I ever will. SS here in the Netherlands is in ok shape. Not that I need it....."
happy to hear it!
here's to many more physically productive years sam-we know your still holding!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I can't begin to fathom the hate in this country.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

To fully respond to what rights we have lost would require a lot of typing and should more then likely be a thread of it's own because there are so many. I don't even begin to think this started with people that are in office now it started long before them. Though I will add I don't see our president or the congress and senate doing a thing to really fix anything.

Let's see, there were Japanese internment camps in WWII and eavesdropping of communications with the Patriot act. One can argue that preserving the Union superseded Abraham Lincoln's constitutional authority. Two of these three transgressions are history.

9/11 changed the way we react to terror. We demanded our lawmakers keep us safe and the PA is what we got. It was mandated by Congress and remains unchallenged by SCOTUS.

Instead of blaming government, remember there were demands by American citizens that government respond. Intrusions on our communications was the result. It didn't help to learn that the administration was already data mining domestic communications prior to 9/11.

Some of the worst laws were unfortunately demanded by the people, mandatory minimums being one of the worst. Politicians whip fear into the populous to get elected. Whether that fear is generated by crime or terror, the results usually end up squeezing everybody's rights.

Groups like the ACLU are castigated as left-wing nut jobs when they protested the PA. The previous administration was successful in painting ACLU as fringe when they actually advocate for all Americans. They also represent minority rights and that makes folks look the other way when ACLU advocates their interests.

All these problems are complex and it takes pesky time to type out our ideas and solutions. It's easier to ball up the mistrust and frustration and throw it at government. The same folks that shout in the streets today were mostly silent when the winds of war and actions restricting our rights followed 9/11.

I think folks that have a fear of government would do themselves a favor by becoming educated in civics or even consider a stint/career in politics. IMO, one would learn we have governmental problems that can be fixed instead of being feared. With a population of over 300 million, we're always going to have unhappy campers. But they have a vote just like everybody else. When their ideas become mainstream enough constitute a majority, a successful leader will steer the train in that direction.

But it was our founding fathers that devised a system of government that keeps the brakes on progressive change as well as rolling the clock back to the 50s, lol. It's called the US Senate and it's near petrified process insures we'll get little done short of super majorities and the occasional compromise.

If you want to make a change, know your representatives and vote your best interests. Bucking the system might be therapeutic but it doesn't advance ones beliefs.

 

[Clackamas Coot]

I can't begin to fathom the hate in this country.

Really?

Look at the educational level of the people spouting drivel about 'spics' - a GED just isn't what it used to be in Pigs Knuckle, Alabama.

 

[HydroManiac]

Let's see, there were Japanese internment camps in WWII and eavesdropping of communications with the Patriot act. One can argue that preserving the Union superseded Abraham Lincoln's constitutional authority. Two of these three transgressions are history.

9/11 changed the way we react to terror. We demanded our lawmakers keep us safe and the PA is what we got. It was mandated by Congress and remains unchallenged by SCOTUS.

Instead of blaming government, remember there were demands by American citizens that government respond. Intrusions on our communications was the result. It didn't help to learn that the administration was already data mining domestic communications prior to 9/11.

Some of the worst laws were unfortunately demanded by the people, mandatory minimums being one of the worst. Politicians whip fear into the populous to get elected. Whether that fear is generated by crime or terror, the results usually end up squeezing everybody's rights.

Groups like the ACLU are castigated as left-wing nut jobs when they protested the PA. The previous administration was successful in painting ACLU as fringe when they actually advocate for all Americans. They also represent minority rights and that makes folks look the other way when ACLU advocates their interests.

All these problems are complex and it takes pesky time to type out our ideas and solutions. It's easier to ball up the mistrust and frustration and throw it at government. The same folks that shout in the streets today were mostly silent when the winds of war and actions restricting our rights followed 9/11.

I think folks that have a fear of government would do themselves a favor by becoming educated in civics or even consider a stint/career in politics. IMO, one would learn we have governmental problems that can be fixed instead of being feared. With a population of over 300 million, we're always going to have unhappy campers. But they have a vote just like everybody else. When their ideas become mainstream enough constitute a majority, a successful leader will steer the train in that direction.

But it was our founding fathers that devised a system of government that keeps the brakes on progressive change as well as rolling the clock back to the 50s, lol. It's called the US Senate and it's near petrified process insures we'll get little done short of super majorities and the occasional compromise.

If you want to make a change, know your representatives and vote your best interests. Bucking the system might be therapeutic but it doesn't advance ones beliefs.

good job m8

 

[hkush]

If you look at only part of the picture you can prove almost anything, like get rid of Social Security, instead of fixing it, the Feds have used it as a feeding trough for years when they said it had more then was needed, sure thing...
BTW, In the real world you can invest 10% of your income each year and still end up broke. It all depends on where you put the funds, invest in ENRON or a whole lot of other failed business and you can lose half or a whole lot more, I know bank stocks I had from my father with a value of $26,000 were only worth less then $2,000 the last time I looked, 20 years of growth lost because of lack of SEC policing, they were to busy watching porn on their computers I guess. But to be honest there is no secure investment, wise up. When the housing market bubble collapsed, taking banks and investment firms with them, dropping the US stock market by 40% in 2008. And a whole lot of innocents fell with it all. Most houses fell 25-30% in value at least, even if you owned it for 25 years free and clear.
But you say to put your retirement funds where? Investment firms? Banks? Stock markets? Real Estate? There is no safe place, believe me. Even the Chinese who bought a Trillion of US Government secured notes, got screwed when the dollar fell sharply. There is no safe haven for retirement funds, that is why they say to diversify, because many will fall or fail, and no one knows which ones.
-SamS

BTW, In the real world you can invest 10% of your income each year and still end up broke.

Sure you can. Not likely and has never happened that someone invest all of their money , their whole life, and end up broke through no fault of their own, but it could work out to be the exact same deal as you get with SSI. Thing about that is, you know with SI that you'll never see a return.

When the housing market bubble collapsed, taking banks and investment firms with them, dropping the US stock market by 40% in 2008. And a whole lot of innocents fell with it all. Most houses fell 25-30% in value at least, even if you owned it for 25 years free and clear.

Thanks to democrats.

Although, my house didn't lose any value. It depends on where you live. If you live in an area where government involvement destroyed the housing industry, yeah, you got fucked. Its no reason to bring in the gubment to destroy more. Its a reason to reject the government "helping" where they are banned by the constitution from "helping".

Also, if someone calls themselves a libertarian, and spends any amount of time arguing the "merits" of the SSI ponzie scheme, I'd have to say they're pretty much a LINO, not to be taken seriously. Libertarians argue about how to best end it, not whether to end it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I love informed posts.......









































....and some are just funny.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Sure you can. Not likely and has never happened that someone invest all of their money , their whole life, and end up broke through no fault of their own, but it could work out to be the exact same deal as you get with SSI. Thing about that is, you know with SI that you'll never see a return.




Thanks to democrats.

Although, my house didn't lose any value. It depends on where you live. If you live in an area where government involvement destroyed the housing industry, yeah, you got fucked. Its no reason to bring in the gubment to destroy more. Its a reason to reject the government "helping" where they are banned by the constitution from "helping".

Also, if someone calls themselves a libertarian, and spends any amount of time arguing the "merits" of the SSI ponzie scheme, I'd have to say they're pretty much a LINO, not to be taken seriously. Libertarians argue about how to best end it, not whether to end it.

So just to be clear their is no way to fix SSI, the funds could of never been used as originally designed, and the problems are all from the Democrats? Funny I thought every administration, Republican, or Democrat used SSI funds to fix what ever economic problems they had created at the moment, when the SSI had more funds then it used in the past? To me the problem is that SSI was used as a bank, to bail out other economic stupidity.
Anyway I do love your world view that the democrats are the core of every political problem, it sure makes finger pointing easy.
I can't help but wonder who you would replace them with if they were gone? The USA government used the Commies, and when gone switched to the Terrorists, Governments need enemies to shove their programs down the peoples throats (to protect them), just like you need the Democrats to shove your brand of politics down peoples throats.
No problem, I am happy to admit all SSI problems are from the Democrats, and only Republicans are worthy, now which Republican? Palin? McCain? Schwartzenegger? Or the many Republicans busted for sexual misconduct? Or are you just joking? I know I am....
-SamS

 

[Cinderella99]

Right on, Sam ... You would think that folks would see through the nonsense, think for themselves and stop allowing themselves to be used as tools. But remember, most folks mean well -- they just get lied to. Human nature is fundamentally good... But ya can't teach a Sneetch lol

http://www.ericlindell.com/fr_music.cfm