Obama AG Critical of a Law He Admited He Had Not Read!!!

by XJW4EVR 13 Replies latest social current

• 

  XJW4EVR

  Stand alone video is not available as of this posting. However, if you skip ahead on this CSPAN video to 2:45:05, you can see for yourself how AG Holder came to the opinion that SB1070 was unconstitutional.

  So when AG Holder was on Meet The Press saying that SB1070 "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling" he really did not know what he was talking about, because he had not read the law. When AG Holder called law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government he really did not know what he was talking about because he hadn't read the law.

  In the above video, Holder said that he was basing his comments on what he had heard from the media. So the top law enforcement officer in the U.S. is basing his opinions on law on what the media tells him? This makes me laugh, because for decades those of us on the right have heard that our opinions are not our own, but the opinions of Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck.
• 

  beksbks

  Ok, I don't know how much more simple it can be put to you. Here's an article in the Right Wing beloved Wall Street Journal.

  http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/23/law-profs-on-arizona-immigration-bill-its-unconstitutional/

  By now you may have heard about a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona that makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

  The law grants police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal. The measure was criticized Friday by President Barack Obama, who asked the Justice Department to research the law.

  It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA.

  The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

  States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said.

  But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  The law grants police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal. The measure was criticized Friday by President Barack Obama, who asked the Justice Department to research the law.

  Is this supposed to refute me?

  The AG has been critical of a law that he admitted to Congress he has NEVER read till that point! That's the issue.

  Secondly, the law does not "grant" police the power to stop and verify immigration status. Law enforcement may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest" (HB 2162, Section 3). As an aside, I was opposed to SB1070 prior to this amendment.

  Lastly, what others have said about SB 1070 is not the issue of this thread. The issue of this thread are the ignorant criticisms of Obama's AG about SB 1070. Nice attempt at a rabbit trail. Please play again.
• 

  beksbks

  Nice attempt at a rabbit trail. Please play again.

  LOL!!!!

  The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  You don't have to like Holder or the law, but it is clearly understood by all. The media has correctly pointed out the potential for racial profiling.

  The AG doesn't have time to read every law. In this case where a law specifically allows for racial profiling, (which it does) and Holder alludes to the many sources that have illuminated this and reported it, what does it prove?

  Are you saying that Holder is in ignoramous that gets his opinions on laws from the local news? Ok. Thats your right. I sincerely disagree.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  The media has correctly pointed out the potential for racial profiling.

  No, Jeff, you are wrong. Read the law, unlike our AG.

  The AG doesn't have time to read every law.

  Agreeed, but an AG should read a law he is critical of, don't you think?

  In this case where a law specifically allows for racial profiling, (which it does) and Holder alludes to the many sources that have illuminated this and reported it, what does it prove?

  Since it is CLEAR that this law only allows them to question immigration status after a lawful stop, it proves that Holder and the sources he is relying on have not read it.

  Are you saying that Holder is in ignoramous that gets his opinions on laws from the local news? Ok. Thats your right. I sincerely disagree.

  So be it.
• 

  beksbks

  I've read enough of the law to know two things. It has no real protections against racial profiling, and it's unconstitutional. Anyone with a brain has no need to read the whole thing to know these two overarching facts.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  I've read enough of the law to know two things. It has no real protections against racial profiling, and it's unconstitutional. Anyone with a brain has no need to read the whole thing to know these two overarching facts.

  Actually those are conclusions not facts, but that would be Logic 101.

  And you are right, anyone with a brain, properly indoctrinated by the liberal media, would agree with your baseless conclusions.
• 

  beksbks

  Actually those are conclusions not facts, but that would be Logic 101.

  And you are right, anyone with a brian, properly indoctrinated by the liberal media, would agree with your baseless conclusions.

  Well, I don't have a brian, although I did know one once.

  You must be short. Trying to fill up the whoooooooooole doorway as you stand in it. Tiny, and inconsequential.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  Well, I don't have a brian, although I did know one once.

  You must be short. Trying to fill up the whoooooooooole doorway as you stand in it. Tiny, and inconsequential.

  That's all you have? A personal attack? What a sad excuse for a human being you are.

  I'm done with you.