Rachel W. When your right, your right. My bad. I cut a pasted this from another discussion group and failed due diligence regards it's veracity. Having investigated further, I see the facts behind this ruling. Hope you don't pass out because I've agreed with you on something
the US Supreme Courts ruling on Muehler v Mena, was 9-0.
For the mathematically challenged liberals, that means all 9 of the Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of allowing police to question someone on their legal status, without any pre-qualifications. That means, even the moderate to ultra liberal Justices on the Supreme Court at the time, ruled in favor of this (2005).
By the way, seems to me a 'Constitutional Law Professor' such as Obamanation claims to be would know all this. It would also seem the highest ranking Law Enforcement Officer in the Country, the US Attorney General, would also know this.
They both should know the US Supreme Court has ruled on stopping and asking people questions, like their legal immigration status and it is perfectly legal and Constitutional.
Here's an example of the kind of liberal idiot politician that we have to deal with here in California. This is in response to an email that I sent regards supporting Arizona's illegal immigration law.
Dear Mr. Serkin:
I am appalled by Arizona's new law, which requires police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the United States. This new mandate is a flagrant violation of First Amendment rights. Not only does this law infringe on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona, but it also invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee. The law violates the prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments. In addition, the law will have the effect of making immigrant populations distrustful of authorities, making them less likely to come forward as victims or as witnesses to crime.
I am pleased that some of the largest civil rights groups have united to challenge this ill-conceived law, and I will openly speak against any similar legislation proposed in the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Pete Stark
Member of Congress
Now here is some cold, hard facts. The only people who are against this law are
1. People who are in the country illegally
2. People who are in the country legally but have relatives and/or friends who are here illegally.
3. The Catholic Church which has been loosing members left and right over the sex scandals and subsequent coverups.
4. The Democrats who figure that, since most of the illegals would vote Democratic, they'll sneak some sort of amnesty bill through. They could care less about Latinos other than their votes.
5. Various and sundry bleeding heart liberals. You know the type. They would say that terrorists attacks on the US and our troops are all our own fault rather than the ignorant terrorists and those who support them.
Recent Comments
http://www.blueservo.net/
For the mathematically challenged liberals, that means all 9 of the Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of allowing police to question someone on their legal status, without any pre-qualifications. That means, even the moderate to ultra liberal Justices on the Supreme Court at the time, ruled in favor of this (2005).
By the way, seems to me a 'Constitutional Law Professor' such as Obamanation claims to be would know all this. It would also seem the highest ranking Law Enforcement Officer in the Country, the US Attorney General, would also know this.
They both should know the US Supreme Court has ruled on stopping and asking people questions, like their legal immigration status and it is perfectly legal and Constitutional.
Dear Mr. Serkin:
I am appalled by Arizona's new law, which requires police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the United States. This new mandate is a flagrant violation of First Amendment rights. Not only does this law infringe on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona, but it also invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee. The law violates the prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments. In addition, the law will have the effect of making immigrant populations distrustful of authorities, making them less likely to come forward as victims or as witnesses to crime.
I am pleased that some of the largest civil rights groups have united to challenge this ill-conceived law, and I will openly speak against any similar legislation proposed in the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Pete Stark
Member of Congress
Now here is some cold, hard facts. The only people who are against this law are
1. People who are in the country illegally
2. People who are in the country legally but have relatives and/or friends who are here illegally.
3. The Catholic Church which has been loosing members left and right over the sex scandals and subsequent coverups.
4. The Democrats who figure that, since most of the illegals would vote Democratic, they'll sneak some sort of amnesty bill through. They could care less about Latinos other than their votes.
5. Various and sundry bleeding heart liberals. You know the type. They would say that terrorists attacks on the US and our troops are all our own fault rather than the ignorant terrorists and those who support them.