Nice “Constitutional Law” photos
Check out these Constitutional Law images:
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
Why is AZ immigration law “racist” but federal law (which Obama enforces) is not?
Question by Notorious P.I.G: Why is AZ immigration law “racist” but federal law (which Obama enforces) is not?
The Arizona immigration law just passed and signed into law by a Republican Governor (SB1070) makes being in the state of Arizona without a visa to be in the United States a misdemeanor.
This is called “Racist” by the left’s echo Chamber.
Federal law, which President Obama ( a leftist) swore to uphold when he took the oath of Office makes the same crime a felony…..
Why is this not being decried as “racist” by the left’s echo chamber?
***My initial reaction to the law was to think that some cops will use the new law as an excuse to racially profile Hispanics. this may well happen, but those cops should be dealt with in accordance with the law, just like foreign nationals who decide to immigrate here illegally.
I have read the law and it seems to be very carefully crafted to withstand 4th amendment challenges in court, and it is also very restrictive as to what circumstances must be met before anyone can be asked for “their papers”.
For this reason, I am supporting the law.
However, Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor makes a valid point that Arizona may be over reaching it’s constitutional mandate in that border security is a constitutionally mandate for the Federal Government, and not the States…
If the court decides that she is right, then I would support the Supreme court overturning this law.
I would also support State’s Attorneys Generals of the various states in a suit to force the Federal government to actually do its job and secure the borders.
Kevin, are you saying that Obama should be Impeached for refusing to enforce immigration law?
Best answer:
Answer by Rancid Stench of BO
because Dems like 0bama despise America
Give your answer to this question below!
Latest “Executive Orders” News
International Forecaster July 2011 (#4) – Gold, Silver, Economy + More
The following are some snippets from the most recent issue of the International Forecaster. For the full 28 page issue, please see subscription information below.
Read more on GoldSeek.com
HRW urges criminal probe of Bush
An American human rights organization has called for a criminal investigation of the former US administration officials over their authorization of torture practices against terror suspects.
Read more on Press TV
Guadagno embraces new clout her office may get
Kim Guadagno, the state’s first lieutenant governor, sits poised to wield expanded power over the most contentious areas in the struggle between developers and business regulators.
Read more on The Record
Why do most of the “Patriots” who support the “law” not understand the English language?
Question by MexiRicanDiva: Why do most of the “Patriots” who support the “law” not understand the English language?
Now, I have been posting and reposting the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as it is the most supreme law of this country which states, (from the original document as posted on the Library of Congress website)
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Okay, so as an English teacher I break this down to mean the following:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
-”Anchor babies” or children born in the United States are U.S. Citizens. There is NOTHING in this section that states the parent must also be a citizen. Therefore, they are entitled to deserve any and all governmental help because they are United States Citizens. You cannot take away the citizenship of a person born here. Okay, got it.
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
-So, because an illegal immigrant is a PERSON, they have laws that protect them in this country. So when a federal judge slapped an injunction on SB1070 because it MIGHT potentially violate a PERSON’s constitutional right, she is a “traitor” to the American people because she upheld the laws of the Constitution?
So, how is it, that Pro-Deportation People argue that illegals BREAK the law by being here, yet, they deserve no rights, despite the fact that the SAME law protects them? Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black??
PLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEASE, DO NOT post RANDOM articles about crime being committed in the U.S. by Latinos. That does nothing to further an intelligent debate because I can also find crime committed by non-Latinos and post that all day. All that demonstrates is you have an AWESOME ability to search on yahoo and copy and paste articles. Those who have an INTELLIGENT contribution to this debate- I can respect.
I should have clarified the second part better.
What I meant was parts of SB1070 have the potential to allow for racial discrimination and stopping someone solely on the basis of their looks is a violation of constitutional rights- and illegal or not, immigrants still have constitutional rights. My arguments was more targeted towards people who claim illegal immgrants don’t have constitutional rights, when in fact they do- as stated in the 14th Amendment.
@Tirebite-
Yet another example of not reading- the Privileges and Immunities Clause:
As the Supreme Court sees it, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Commerce Clause of Article I serve the common goal of unifying the country economically. The primary purpose of the clause is to prevent states from placing unreasonable burdens on non-residents!http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/priv&immart4.htm
Best answer:
Answer by greasytony
It doesn’t matter how you put it, those “Patriots” claim to love the Constitution, but only the parts that go with their agenda.
A real Americans goes by the Constitution and never strips people of their rights.
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights
Immigrants’ Rights
No Human Being Is Illegal
The Constitution guarantees the fundamental rights and civil liberties of every person in this country. Upholding the rights of the politically disenfranchised is vital; when the government has the power to deny legal rights and due process to one group of people, it puts all our rights in danger. More
What do you think? Answer below!
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
A few nice Constitutional Law images I found:
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
What are some of the most revolutionary concepts evident in the USA during the last 50 years?
Question by towwwdothello: What are some of the most revolutionary concepts evident in the USA during the last 50 years?
consistent with Constitutional law?
“Life Liberty and Pursuits of Happiness”
Best answer:
Answer by itsamini1
The Civil Rights Amendment
Give your answer to this question below!