Our Ever growing corrupt courts and government

[freeatlast]

The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta has overruled part of a lower judge's decision and ordered Alabama to stop questioning grade-school students and parents about their citizenship status....
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/appeals-court-says-alabama-must-stop-asking-k-174108533.html

 

[Crabtownboy]

The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta has overruled part of a lower judge's decision and ordered Alabama to stop questioning grade-school students and parents about their citizenship status....
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/appeals-court-says-alabama-must-stop-asking-k-174108533.html

Asking kids questions so they will snitch on their parents is what we used to accuse the Communist of doing and we proudly would say that we do not resort to such immoral tactics.

 

[freeatlast]

Asking kids questions so they will snitch on their parents is what we used to accuse the Communist of doing and we proudly would say that we do not resort to such immoral tactics.

If you read the article it says students AND parents. This is not asking a child to rat out a parent. This is at the time of enrolment when the parent has to be with the child and they are being asked if they have legal status. What you are proposing as is this court is illegal activity is acceptable if it is not disclosed. Sort of a don't ask don't tell to safe guard the criminals. The immorality is with those who support the courts ruling.

 

[matt wade]

From the article:

The 11th Circuit sided with the Obama administration's argument that the schools provision of the law should be blocked as the courts rule on its constitutionality because ongoing enforcement could have a "chilling" effect on enrollment among immigrant families. The Alabama school system reported widespread absences among Hispanic students the week after the law passed, and local news reports suggested families were fleeing the state because they were afraid they would be deported.

So, it was working as intended. Illegals were not coming to school and were actually fleeing the state. Great work! Too bad liberals had to go and mess it up. If liberals want to pay for these kids to go to school, why don't they go build some schools in Mexico?

 

[Ruiz]

Both the 5th and 4th amendment guarantees us that we neither have to testify ourselves but limits the government to needing probable cause. I am think the court is correct.

 

[Salty]

Both the 5th and 4th amendment guarantees us that we neither have to testify ourselves but limits the government to needing probable cause. I am think the court is correct.

So you are advocationg that we do not have to list all of our income on the 1040, previous drivers licence revocations in another State or Commonwealth, stealing from a business when applying at a new company....

 

[Ruiz]

So you are advocationg that we do not have to list all of our income on the 1040, previous drivers licence revocations in another State or Commonwealth, stealing from a business when applying at a new company....

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that it is illegal for the Government to search me or my children without probable cause. I have the right to not be questioned about my immigration status unless you have probable cause that I actually committed a crime. I am Hispanic, as is my mother who is Hispanic, has the right to send her children to school without having her children questioned on our immigration status. We are here legally and are guaranteed due process not just some officers who think I may be illegal.

I don't have a problem with requiring information prior to admission like a Birth Certificate as evidence of age identifying a child. Yet, having government agents question my kids without probable cause is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[freeatlast]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that it is illegal for the Government to search me or my children without probable cause. I have the right to not be questioned about my immigration status unless you have probable cause that I actually committed a crime. I am Hispanic, as is my mother who is Hispanic, has the right to send her children to school without having her children questioned on our immigration status. We are here legally and are guaranteed due process not just some officers who think I may be illegal.

I don't have a problem with requiring information prior to admission like a Birth Certificate as evidence of age identifying a child. Yet, having government agents question my kids without probable cause is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

This does not violate the 4th amendment. Here is what it says;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Asking for documentation for legal status is not in violation of this amendment any more then asking for proof of voter eligibility to vote when it is applied across the board to all new school registrations.

This law was not unreasonable which has to be the case before there is protection.

 

[Ruiz]

This does not violate the 4th amendment. Here is what it says;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Asking for documentation for legal status is not in violation of this amendment any more then asking for proof of voter eligibility to vote when it is applied across the board to all new school registrations.

This law was not unreasonable which has to be the case before there is protection.

There are two points the 4th amendment stands upon. First, the part where any search must also include "probable cause." In other words, I should not have to prove I am innocent or even have to stand for questioning unless you have probable cause to question me. The word that I use to support this is "the right of people to be secure in their persons." In other words, if I am walking around freely in public locations or in places I have the right to be, then I have this right intrinsic to not being questioned unless there is probable cause of wrongdoing.

We are not Germany in the 1930's and 40's where you have to produce documents if a police officer is on the street corner and thinks you are breaking the law. He would need probable cause.

I am more afraid of a government who can stop anyone for any reason to ask for papers than I am of an illegal immigrant walking around in public. When Government can get probable cause, then they should issue a warrant and search the person.

That is why we need warrants to search people, warrants to arrest people, and the like. This was to protect us from the abuses of Britain who could search you without just cause.

 

[freeatlast]

There are two points the 4th amendment stands upon. First, the part where any search must also include "probable cause." In other words, I should not have to prove I am innocent or even have to stand for questioning unless you have probable cause to question me. The word that I use to support this is "the right of people to be secure in their persons." In other words, if I am walking around freely in public locations or in places I have the right to be, then I have this right intrinsic to not being questioned unless there is probable cause of wrongdoing.

We are not Germany in the 1930's and 40's where you have to produce documents if a police officer is on the street corner and thinks you are breaking the law. He would need probable cause.

I am more afraid of a government who can stop anyone for any reason to ask for papers than I am of an illegal immigrant walking around in public. When Government can get probable cause, then they should issue a warrant and search the person.

That is why we need warrants to search people, warrants to arrest people, and the like. This was to protect us from the abuses of Britain who could search you without just cause.

This is not about the government searching people like at airports which IS illegal or having the government stopping people asking for papers. This is about asking for proper documentation for school enrolment which is across the board for all who enroll.


Illegals have no right to a free education, free medical care, a job, or any other privilege those who are here legally have. The rights an illegal has is prison and then deportation.

 

[Ruiz]

This is not about the government searching people like at airports which IS illegal or having the government stopping people asking for papers. This is about asking for proper documentation for school enrolment which is across the board for all who enroll.


Illegals have no right to a free education, free medical care, a job, or any other privilege those who are here legally have. The rights an illegal has is prison and then deportation.

If you reread what I said, I am all for asking for proper documentation by the schools like a birth certificate when enrolling a student in school. However, the questioning was going beyond the basic enrollment into the school.

The provision that was reversed also said that people didn't have to prove they were here legally, but that the courts and states had to prove they were here illegally. The latter is Constitutional as a person is innocent until proven guilty. I think the courts have been consistent on these types of provisions on the Circuit Court level. Thus, I find it strange that people are still arguing against the circuit court.

 

[Ruiz]

BTW, I went to the 11th Circuit's webpage to read the decision but this was a preliminary decision based upon a written decision that will be released later (common on very timely cases). Thus, no one here knows their rationale for the decision. You cannot argue against their decision until you know why they made the decision. I support the decision but they may have other reasons than I think they may have used.

 

[freeatlast]

BTW, I went to the 11th Circuit's webpage to read the decision but this was a preliminary decision based upon a written decision that will be released later (common on very timely cases). Thus, no one here knows their rationale for the decision. You cannot argue against their decision until you know why they made the decision. I support the decision but they may have other reasons than I think they may have used.

I really do not care what their rational was it was wrong. Asking for documentation is not in violation of the 4th amendment. Most who are fighting this are illegals and/or their families. It is a clear indication that they stand against the constitution instead of for it. All illegals need to be put in prison and then deported to their home country. if their home country refuses to take them then leave them in prison for life.
While they are in prison they need to be put to work building a wall between Mexico and the US, also working the prison fields to grow crops to feed the inmate population.

 

[Ruiz]

I really do not care what their rational was it was wrong. Asking for documentation is not in violation of the 4th amendment. Most who are fighting this are illegals and/or their families. It is a clear indication that they stand against the constitution instead of for it. All illegals need to be put in prison and then deported to their home country. if their home country refuses to take them then leave them in prison for life.
While they are in prison they need to be put to work building a wall between Mexico and the US, also working the prison fields to grow crops to feed the inmate population.

Well, it is a violation of the 4th amendment because you have no right to search me or keep me for questioning without reasonable suspicion. The British did this and it was a reason for the 4th to be included in the Constitution. Yet, the courts never said this is the reason for their decision. So, you assume this was their rationale. I assume it was as well, but we will not know until the decision is published. Until we read the decision, we can only assume.

What provision of the Constitution is this ruling violating? I would be rather interested in hearing your Constitutional argument for this one.

 

[freeatlast]

Well, it is a violation of the 4th amendment because you have no right to search me or keep me for questioning without reasonable suspicion. The British did this and it was a reason for the 4th to be included in the Constitution. Yet, the courts never said this is the reason for their decision. So, you assume this was their rationale. I assume it was as well, but we will not know until the decision is published. Until we read the decision, we can only assume.

What provision of the Constitution is this ruling violating? I would be rather interested in hearing your Constitutional argument for this one.

You are twisting the truth. This was about neither. This was about proper documentation to show that the person enrolling meets the qualifications for free schooling. The law is a good law. To stand against this law is to stand against America and its laws. And to twist the truth about the law is to stand against Christ.

 

[Ruiz]

You are twisting the truth. This was about neither. This was about proper documentation to show that the person enrolling meets the qualifications for free schooling. The law is a good law. To stand against this law is to stand against America and its laws. And to twist the truth about the law is to stand against Christ.

No, it is not a good law. Previous law and Courts have ruled that if government requires something of a citizens (in this case, education), then the government must meet the same Constitutional requirements afforded citizens in the Constitution when meeting that requirement. Thus, if Government requires you educate your kids then they have to uphold the same Constitutional mandates within that requirement. Thus, you cannot require me to send my kids to a public school and at the same time require that if I send my kids to school that I surrender other rights afforded by citizens. Thus, testifying or proving my citizenship would be an undo requirement because it would force citizens who have no reasonable suspicion to prove their status, thus a violation of the 4th for all citizens.

However, in the case of Drivers Licensing (often used against my viewpoint), it is not required to have a license therefore more requirements can be placed on obtaining a Driver's License than upon getting a public education.

The argument in education is that there are other options. However, the default option is public school. Thus, if you don't educate, you could be forced to send your children to the public school or face penalties. As a result, you cannot be asked to appease inquiries into possible illegalities that fail to meet the reasonable suspicion clause when fulfilling this requirement.

While I do not like the rule requiring mandated education, it is right that they cannot ask for more documentation on something that government mandates.

Thus, this is a violation of the 4th.

Now, you said that the ruling violated the Constitution, you never explained how it violated the Constitution.

 

[freeatlast]

No, it is not a good law. Previous law and Courts have ruled that if government requires something of a citizens (in this case, education), then the government must meet the same Constitutional requirements afforded citizens in the Constitution when meeting that requirement. Thus, if Government requires you educate your kids then they have to uphold the same Constitutional mandates within that requirement. Thus, you cannot require me to send my kids to a public school and at the same time require that if I send my kids to school that I surrender other rights afforded by citizens. Thus, testifying or proving my citizenship would be an undo requirement because it would force citizens who have no reasonable suspicion to prove their status, thus a violation of the 4th for all citizens.

However, in the case of Drivers Licensing (often used against my viewpoint), it is not required to have a license therefore more requirements can be placed on obtaining a Driver's License than upon getting a public education.

The argument in education is that there are other options. However, the default option is public school. Thus, if you don't educate, you could be forced to send your children to the public school or face penalties. As a result, you cannot be asked to appease inquiries into possible illegalities that fail to meet the reasonable suspicion clause when fulfilling this requirement.

While I do not like the rule requiring mandated education, it is right that they cannot ask for more documentation on something that government mandates.

Thus, this is a violation of the 4th.

Now, you said that the ruling violated the Constitution, you never explained how it violated the Constitution.

You don't get it! Illegals are not citizens and citizens rights are not being violated by asking for documentation. There is no violation. Illegals have no right to public schools! They have the right to prison and deportation. What you are trying to claim would make it illegal to arrest even a citizen accused of a crime if they ever registered to vote and their name and address came up on file as wanted. They have to register to vote so your analogy means they cannot be arrested because they are forced to register to vote so their rights under the 4th amendment are violated and they should not have to register.

 

[Ruiz]

You don't get it! Illegals are not citizens and citizens rights are not being violated by asking for documentation. There is no violation. Illegals have no right to public schools! They have the right to prison and deportation. What you are trying to claim would make it illegal to arrest even a citizen accused of a crime if they ever registered to vote and their name and address came up on file as wanted. They have to register to vote so your analogy means they cannot be arrested because they are forced to register to vote so their rights under the 4th amendment are violated and they should not have to register.

You don't get it, requiring citizens to produce evidence is illegal. Thus, if you require one person to prove they are a citizen and they are a citizen, you violated their Constitutional rights. Thus, we cannot force you, an American citizen, to prove your citizenship. It is the law that we have to have probable cause in order to ask you for evidence.

I get it, they are illegal. You don't get it, no citizen should be required to prove their citizenship and there must be probable cause first. How do we stop government in violating citizens' rights? The fourth amendment says we must have probable cause first. Why? Citizens should never be considered guilty until there is probable cause. They should not prove they are innocent, you need to have probable cause that they are guilty first.

Thus, unless you are going to guarantee that all people who are asked to prove they are citizens are actually illegals, then you are in violation of their Constitutional Rights.

You would rather sacrifice a citizen's rights to get some illegals. Our founders said that we would rather protect citizen's rights first.

 

[billwald]

The simple and logical solution is a national ID card for all citizens. It could take the place of most of the plastic we carry around.

 

[Ruiz]

The simple and logical solution is a national ID card for all citizens. It could take the place of most of the plastic we carry around.

I disagree. I think a National Identification card is beyond the scope of the Federal Government and I believe holds serious privacy issues at risk.