Poll

3 votes (42.85%)
4 votes (57.14%)

7 members have voted

pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
February 8th, 2011 at 9:47:42 PM permalink
Arizona Lawmakers have introduced an "Anchor Baby" bill .

Most people know that the Supreme Court has interpreted constitutional amendment #14 to be absolute jus soli or that anyone born on US soil is a citizen regardless of the status of the parents. Many people think that the Supreme Court is wrongly interpreting the boldface clause.

Quote: Amendment #14, section 1

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.



Do you think states should be in the business of introducing bills that seemingly violate the constitution as interpreted by the courts? Certainly the question of national citizenship is not a state matter.

I would appreciate answers about "state's rights" and procedures, not opinions about anchor babies. Is Arizona legally and morally right in trying to pass this law?

Quote: Possible precedent


In 1983 the Takoma Park City Council enacted the Takoma Park Nuclear-Free Zone Act and established the Nuclear-Free Takoma Park Committee to oversee implementation of and adherence to the Act. The act prohibs "work on nuclear weapons is prohibited within the city limits and that citizens and representatives are urged to redirect resources previously used for nuclear weapons toward endeavors which promote and enhance life...." .

* Prohibits the production of nuclear weapons in the City of Takoma Park;
* Prohibits the City from purchasing or leasing products produced by a nuclear weapons producer or from granting any award, contract, or purchase order to any nuclear weapons producer;
* Directs the City Council to establish and publish a list of nuclear weapons producers to guide the City in implementing the Act;
* Directs the City to develop and implement a socially-responsible investment policy prohibiting investments in industries and institutions engaged in nuclear weapons production;
* Provides for a waiver of the purchasing prohibitions, under certain conditions; and
*Establishes the seven member Nuclear Free Takoma Park Committee, appointed by the Mayor and City Council, to oversee implementation of and adherence to, the Act



It was seen by most people as a senseless bill since a small city in MD cannot dictate policy with regard to nuclear weapons. Of course some people saw it as a brave political act. I don't think it has ever been challenged since the city has no defense industry.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
February 8th, 2011 at 10:23:54 PM permalink
Of course Arizona has no legal standing to determine if a person is or is not a citizen of the United States. This bill is a symbolic gesture, brought about by Arizona's (legitimate) frustration over the federal government's reluctance to enforce its own laws. In failing to enforce those laws, the federal government puts an undue burden on state resources. So Arizona's argument is, it no longer is obligated to observe federal citizenship law, and therefore is entitled to draft and enforce its own set of standards. Legal? Not at the moment. Morally justified? Definitely. Worth the expenditure? Hard to say. It's largely a quixotic effort, but illegal immigration is a huge drain on Arizona's resources, so any pressure all this puts on the federal government might be worth it.

The "nuclear-free zone" thing is utterly asinine, by the way. Nuclear weapons have tens of thousands of components made by hundreds of different manufacturers. The right-thinking citizens of Goofy Park, or whatever it's called, should at a very minimum abandon their cars, burn down their houses, destroy the public transit system, and rip out all the power, water, and sewer infrastructure. They should shut down all the supermarkets, and revert to a subsistence, farm-based economy. That is, if they're SERIOUS about not "purchasing or leasing products produced by a nuclear weapons producer".
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Wavy70
Wavy70
Joined: Nov 3, 2009
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 907
February 8th, 2011 at 10:29:50 PM permalink
We settled this in the 1860's during the war of the Southern Uprising. The main catalyst was when they wanted to keep slaves and marry their sisters.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 2970
February 10th, 2011 at 8:47:54 AM permalink
Quote: Wavy70

We settled this in the 1860's during the war of the Southern Uprising. The main catalyst was when they wanted to keep slaves and marry their sisters.


Our constitutional law professor last semester noted that if advocates of same-sex marriage like the ACLU persisted in presenting their side as an equal rights case, the latter, as well as incest and the like, could more than conceivably fall under the 14th Amendment rubric.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
February 10th, 2011 at 9:17:08 AM permalink
I voted "yes", because of what MKL said. The cost is definitely worse it for Arizona, as a way of drawing attention to the issue, and eventually getting their dire situation to improve.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
February 10th, 2011 at 11:33:34 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Do you think states should be in the business of introducing bills that seemingly violate the constitution as interpreted by the courts?



If the question is the thread title, "Is the cost of defending constitutionally questionable laws worth it?", then I say a resounding YES. Anything done within the system to critically and impartially examine constitutionality is, I think, for the overall good of the nation and the Constitution. That said, "critically and impartially" doesn't always happen, but that's the lawyers's and politicians's faults, not the Constitution's.

If the question is what is quoted above, then no, the states should not be in that business. I think I would be slower to assign motive to the state, though. The Arizona example is a little more obvious than most, I think, but states pass laws all the time that maybe press the question, only without intent.

FWIW, I think the states should be pressing the question far more than the federal government should be (e.g., health care law), so if the states are doing it, at least it's being done in the "right" forum. But no, states shouldn't go about pressing constitutionality just for the sake of pressing.
soulhunt79
soulhunt79
Joined: Oct 8, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 207
February 10th, 2011 at 2:21:56 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin


Do you think states should be in the business of introducing bills that seemingly violate the constitution as interpreted by the courts? Certainly the question of national citizenship is not a state matter.

I would appreciate answers about "state's rights" and procedures, not opinions about anchor babies. Is Arizona legally and morally right in trying to pass this law?




I think so. In the broader issue of illegal immigration which this is a part of, you have both sides using different tactics. Sanctuary cities seem to be a very easy way for a city to get around a law. I'm not aware of many other issues of this size where whole cities have policies to just ignore certain laws. They didn't have to create a bill or law for that. They simply needed to go to the enforcers and tell them not to enforce the particular laws.

The other side doesn't really have that option. If they deny citizenship, that person can simply go to court and get it reversed. Clearly costing money though. I'm not sure if a person could take an illegal immigrant to court and get them deported.


Creating a bill/law to me seems like the counterpart to ignoring a law. Therefore I think it is a valid strategy.

I want groups to be able to speak their minds whether I agree with them or not. Constitutional issues being brought up in court to me is many many many times more useful than many of the lawsuits that happen nowdays.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 978
  • Posts: 16486
February 10th, 2011 at 6:40:57 PM permalink
I moved a post by FleaStiff to the Free Speech Zone, because I found it so repugnant. You can find it at FleaStiff's Manifesto on Crime and Punishment of Women and Children.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 2970
February 12th, 2011 at 7:43:07 AM permalink
Quote: soulhunt79

Sanctuary cities seem to be a very easy way for a city to get around a law. I'm not aware of many other issues of this size where whole cities have policies to just ignore certain laws. They didn't have to create a bill or law for that. They simply needed to go to the enforcers and tell them not to enforce the particular laws.


Starting in the Vietnam War, cities and even states declared themselves "nuclear free."

  • Jump to: