I have seen many examples of people losing their property under the very unfair seizure laws. Even when they show on national TV how innocent they were many times they had to recover their property by buying their property back in the auctions made by the government. So yeah, even if many can show that the law is abused, harm was done and it will happen in the future.
I’m arguing that the law will be overturned. I don’t really care whether it will be overturned becasue it’s unconstitutional, or for something else. There are arguments that it violates the 4th Amendment, there are arguments that it will be applied unlawfully on a consistent enough basis that it’s stupid, there are arguments that even if it were constitutional, its terrible public policy. I really don’t care which one wins out, and I am fairly confident that one or more of the umpteen reasons already mentioned in this thread will be sufficient. I don’t want to get to the (IMO totally inevitable) point where people’s human rights are violated. Having seen it happen in similar circumstances before is quite enough for me.
Abortion isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution either, and yet Roe vs. Wade still stands, which makes me a happy camper.
What if Arizona substantially revises the law? They’re apparently passing an addendum making it more impermissible to use racial profiling to enforce it.
… no, I don’t know how either.
Well, let’s be a little clearer on who “them” is.
In your sentence, “them” seems to refer to “people that discriminate.”
But the law may only be used to enforce the law as it’s actually written. So it’s unclear to me if you’re saying that “people who discriminate” include the Arizona legislative body’s veto-proof supermajority.
And the courts have reviewed and upheld those laws?
So basically you’re saying that in your view, the laws were unfair, but the courts disagreed? And that the courts disagreed that the specific applications you complain of were unfair, too?
That’s very true.
In that case, the courts decided to create public policy. They may well decide to do something similar here.
But i don’t know how to address that argument. I mean… I get that you want the law to go away, and don’t really care how it happens. But if the same process were used to erase abortion rights – say, if the court decided to find that a Fourteenth Amendment “right to life” is hidden there amongst the substantive due process penumbras and emanations – you’d be outraged.
So, as far as I can tell tell, your position is: whatever process happens to get me the result I want is the one I favor today. Tomorrow, that same process may reach an unfavorable result for me, at which point I’ll condemn it.
To me, that’s an untenable approach to self-government.
Any change to the law should mean a push, although if they change the law in that way it might favor my side of the bet. But neither side should be held to a prediction about the interaction of Law A and Law B if one of them changes into Law C at some point.
Ummm, no, I evaluate laws and such on their individual merits (or lack thereof). I don’t think it’s fair to state that because I approve of the chain of events that brought Roe vs. Wade to be, that I would condemn the process if it had brought about another result. If (Heaven forbid) Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, I will evaluate the events as they take place. And no, I’m not happy about the various state laws that have been chipping away at it, but I evaluate those situations individually, too.
That’s what case law is all about, no? Each case is supposed to turn on its specific facts?
Now let’s not play the naive card.
As mentioned there are many reasons why this law will be found to be unconstitutional, finding that it helps and encourages people with a reprehensible agenda to clog the courts with lawsuits that will cost the state money that it does not have is another reason why one should oppose this law.
Um… no.
Cases stand for propositions. A case states a general rule, which we then should be able to either apply to other cases, or identify some distinguishing fact pattern that permits us to state a new rule.
Here, you’re not so much worried about the facts as you are about the result.
OK.
So – you up for a bet, then, since there are many reasons the law will be found unconstitutional?
That was not the point, I was replying to your assumption that abuse would be impossible, I mentioned that it is impossible with the current forfeiture laws used in the silly war against drugs, more so IMHO with this law.
I’m not saying that abuse is impossible. I’m saying that if abuse happens, it will happen because the law is violated, not followed.
Your forfeiture example claims abuse even when the law is followed – that the law on its face is unfair.
Betting to force a moot point? I have better things to do, like supporting the democratic candidate for governor (Even with Brewer signing the immigration bill into law it is the democratic candidate that still slightly ahead of her in an eventual election match up in November)
No, I am worried about the result because I am worried about the facts. On any given issue, I can’t tell you whether I am worried about the result until I know what the facts are and can make decisions about how previous facts might be analogized to them.
Here, I have a pretty good idea of what the facts are, and am drawing analogies with previous sets of facts which had IMO a negative result.
Will the law be overturned? If not, will it be applied to the detriment of innocent people? Neither of us knows for sure - it hasn’t taken effect yet. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
It looks like they’ve made changes to the law and assuming they Gov. signs them they should be in place as the primary law takes effect.
Yes. Indeed, I think it is unfair.
And if we had did not have law makers like ones that proposed this law and enforcers like Arpaio I would be as hopeful as you are.
The officer’s “interfere with investigation” claim might be mooted.
Can’t argue with that!
Well, I’m not sure it’s fair to assume that Bricker is actually hopeful that the law will do any good. He hasn’t attempted to debate its merits, as far as I can tell, just its legality.
On the other hand, he has something of a vested interest in the law’s success, since passage of a similar law in Virginia would probably increase the number of illegal aliens charged with non-immigration-related offenses, and thereby enhance his job security.