Sheriff Arpaio says he'll enforce unconstitutional laws, Mack and Judge remind him of

[Prometheus]

Sheriff Arpaio just dropped of my favorites list. Here he is (repeated) saying he'll enforce all laws, even unconsitutional laws.... "if you don't like, change the laws" is his answer.

Judge Napalitano and Sheriff Mack remind him of his oath to uphold and defend THE CONSTITUTION which he has obviously forgotten.

Watch the 6 min clip, very disturbing stuff.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq7WYuKebj0"]YouTube - Sheriff Richard Mack vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Freedom Watch 06/26/10: Illegal Immigration p.5/7[/ame]

I'm not sure I agree with Mack on his view of the immigration law, he makes and WON a court challenge for Arizona state sovereignty and is very pro border enforcement. It would be nice to hear his full thoughts on the matter.

Whats telling here is Joe Arpaios stupidity and ignorance of his duty and oath.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I support Joe..


If illegals, communist/liberals etc can bend the constitution to meet they're unAmerican desires, then why would I support it anymore.

I think Joe is doing a great job

 

[downzero]

I can name a laundry list of very conservative people, including one of the most prominent Second Amendment scholars in the country, who say exactly the same thing. Books have even been written on this saying that courts ought not have the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

In England, from what I understand, all laws enacted by the legislature are automatically "constitutional" under their "unwritten" constitution.

In our system, it depends on whether a fundamental right is at issue whether the laws are presumed constitutional until it's shown otherwise, or the other way around.

In short, I don't think what this guy saying is as far from the mainstream (even in America) as you think. In fact, I suspect that before Marbury v. Madison, it would have been quite common.

 

[level.eleven]

Isn't Mack the sheriff whose book INGO took upon themselves to send too every sheriff in the state? Interesting.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Mack is right technically i think. this is a touchy subject and it would be impossible for us to get into every instance where it would be constitutionaly legal to ask for papers. I still support arizona.

arpiao is a butt monkey for saying he will blindly enforce all the laws no matter if they are constitutional or not. i guess its safe to assume he isnt a member of the Oath Keepers? lol

Mack is right when he says they need to take away the entitlement programs from illegals and such. that my friends is the ultimate answer to solve illegal imigration and lazyness in this country

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Why shouldn't they be able to ask people for their papers? It is no different than being asked for my ID if I am stopped.

 

[tuoder]

Arapio has always been off the rails. He's never had any respect for the law. I don't think the executives ought to be pretending to be legislators any more than the judiciary should.

 

[downzero]

Why shouldn't they be able to ask people for their papers? It is no different than being asked for my ID if I am stopped.

Do you take a birth certificate with you everywhere you go?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Do you take a birth certificate with you everywhere you go?

a copy, yep, sure do. its part of my EDC bug out gear

 

[88GT]

Do you take a birth certificate with you everywhere you go?

If he's a foreign national, he damn well better carry some form of identification showing that he's legal to be within the borders of the sovereign nation known generically as America.

AZ's law doesn't even scratch the surface relative to the federal version.

 

[downzero]

If he's a foreign national, he damn well better carry some form of identification showing that he's legal to be within the borders of the sovereign nation known generically as America.

AZ's law doesn't even scratch the surface relative to the federal version.

Some foreign nationals have driver's licenses, because some states have had loopholes that allow this.

So what that means is that even if you're an American, if you can't prove you're lawfully here, you could, theoretically, be held until you could prove you were lawfully here, depending on how broad the statute was written.

Is this where you want the law to go?

 

[Fletch]

Some foreign nationals have driver's licenses, because some states have had loopholes that allow this.

So what that means is that even if you're an American, if you can't prove you're lawfully here, you could, theoretically, be held until you could prove you were lawfully here, depending on how broad the statute was written.

Is this where you want the law to go?

Rights and freedoms are not taken by the government. They're given away by the angry and the fearful.

 

[Ramen]

Why shouldn't they be able to ask people for their papers? It is no different than being asked for my ID if I am stopped.

I don't want the government to have the power to stop me and force me to show proof of my existence ever. I have a right to life and to exist. If I have to show papers at any moment then the government owns me.

I would rather some "illegal aliens" slip through the cracks than have a government that decides whether I meet their requirements to breath.

Wouldn't you?

 

[Ogre]

I don't want the government to have the power to stop me and force me to show proof of my existence ever. I have a right to life and to exist. If I have to show papers at any moment then the government owns me.

I would rather some "illegal aliens" slip through the cracks than have a government that decides whether I meet their requirements to breath.

Wouldn't you?

Every time I have been stopped by a LEO, I have to show my ID, why should those of perceived foreign origin be excused?

 

[mrjarrell]

As I recall seeing here at one time, (info provided by one of our lawyers or cops) in Indiana you are not required to show ID to a cop unless you have been stopped for an infraction or an ordinance violation. (LTCH is not an ID and has other criteria for showing). So, when the cop asks for ID you can refuse in most circumstances. Just glad I don't live in AZ.

 

[MinuteMan47]

...and even worse...now we have to show ID EVERY TIME we buy beer!

 

[irishfan]

Do you take a birth certificate with you everywhere you go?

No but I need to get one to carry but I do carry my social security, DL, copy of High School Diploma, and a few other things.

 

[88GT]

Some foreign nationals have driver's licenses, because some states have had loopholes that allow this.

Why would you have a problem with legal foreign nationals having one?

So what that means is that even if you're an American, if you can't prove you're lawfully here, you could, theoretically, be held until you could prove you were lawfully here, depending on how broad the statute was written.


Is this where you want the law to go?

No, I wouldn't. Are you comfortable with the blase attitude of encouraging foreign nationals to rape and pillage our country because that's the cost of preserving that freedom?

 

[downzero]

Every time I have been stopped by a LEO, I have to show my ID, why should those of perceived foreign origin be excused?

They shouldn't. But your ID doesn't have any conclusive evidence of your immigration status.

No but I need to get one to carry but I do carry my social security, DL, copy of High School Diploma, and a few other things.

None of those things verify your immigration status. Well, they might not. It depends on if you have the new IN driver's license, which is much more strict than most states.

Why would you have a problem with legal foreign nationals having one?

I can see a lot of potential problems with our government issuing certain types of ID to foreign nationals, legal or not. Our society TRUSTS those IDs. Maybe they ought not--but most people in our society, if they see a driver's license, automatically think the person is legitimate. The trend is actually to a more and more secure ID, which really makes it scary because people will rely on it even more, even though experts say that there is no way to issue effective ID cards to a population as large as ours.

No, I wouldn't. Are you comfortable with the blase attitude of encouraging foreign nationals to rape and pillage our country because that's the cost of preserving that freedom?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. If you're asking if I'd rather see foreign nationals "rape and pillage" our country than require citizens' fourth and fourteenth amendment rights to be violated on a daily basis, the answer is yes, our constitution is worth preserving at any cost.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I don't want the government to have the power to stop me and force me to show proof of my existence ever. I have a right to life and to exist. If I have to show papers at any moment then the government owns me.

I would rather some "illegal aliens" slip through the cracks than have a government that decides whether I meet their requirements to breath.

Wouldn't you?

I think the point is that they're required to show papers proving they are legal within the US, not that they exist. And I'm sure you were being slightly facetious with that statement, but you do realize that there are times when you have to show 'papers,' be it a LTCH, a driver's license, a SS card, or a BC.

Why would you have a problem with legal foreign nationals having one?

I think illegal aliens having driver's licenses, which they shouldn't have due to the paperwork requirements to obtain one, in the US is the problem. In other instances, if they have a green card or work at a foreign embassy. If the state has allowances for them to get a driver's license with those credentials then it should be okay.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. If you're asking if I'd rather see foreign nationals "rape and pillage" our country than require citizens' fourth and fourteenth amendment rights to be violated on a daily basis, the answer is yes, our constitution is worth preserving at any cost.

I'm sure you mean specifically that the Constitution should be preserved at any cost that does not destroy our society. I would like to point out that, in the event of some sort of revolution, there's no guarantee that the Constitution would be revitalized at the end of it. I think the stipulations for maintaining the Constitution are based specifically on the preservation of the nation. If we are going to attempt to hold the Constitution at the cost of the nation, then it's time we start looking at other solutions.