Search This Blog

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Leftist Constitutional Concerns

Gentle Reader may recall this video we watched a few days ago, in which US Representative Phil Hare (D-Ill.), defending his vote for the "health" "care" "reform" bill which the Dems currently imagine they have imposed upon the nation, said:

"I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest ..." (see from the :45 mark)


In my post concerning the video, I asked, "Is there really *any* Democrat, anywhere, who worries about the Constitution? On any matter?"

Comes this NYT editorial-disguised-as-objective-news-analysis concerning the recently enacted Arizona State law to require enforcement of the national laws concerning illegal "immigrants" (can an invader *really* be honestly call an immigrant?)
... When he hung up, Mr. Woods knew he had lost the case. “She really felt that the majority of Arizonans fall on the side of, Let’s solve the problem and not worry about the Constitution,” he said.
Now, Mr Woods (a Republican politician in Arizona who was against the law) may or may not have said that -- with newspapers in general, and certainly not with the NYT, one can never trust that a claimed direct quote was even uttered in the first place, much less that it was quoted accurately if it was even made.

Still, whether or not the quoted statement was ever actually uttered, grasp the sheer audacity of asserting that enforcement of actual Constitutionally-sound law is anti-Constitutional (and grasp the NYT's endorsement of the sentiment), and grasp this especially in light of the long-standing "liberal" disdain for the actual Constitution ... you know, the one that is written down; you know, the dead one!

6 comments:

cathy said...

I'm not clear what it is about the law that has Mr. Woods (allegedly) characterizing it as "not (worrying) about the Constitution." Is is the stopping people without a warrant? (Thus the fears about racial profiling, etc.) Wouldn't a person's resembling a suspect* be reasonable cause for stopping/questioning under any circumstances?

* Since the concern is violent illegals, the police must have an assortment of 'descriptions' available to them.

Although, there is a part that does creep me out -- allowing the local police to stop and check the immigration papers of noncitizens and making it a state crime not to have them.. Even if non-citizens might be expected to identify themselves when asked (and that "if" is maybe another whole issue), it hardly seems, well, Constitutional, that anyone who might be considered foreign-looking should have to be prepared to defend himself with appropriate documentation anytime he steps outside.

cathy said...

Oh, it turns out I don't need to worry about it; the Pres is all over it.

I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this guy. (Joke.)

Ilíon said...

“Although, there is a part that does creep me out -- allowing the local police to stop and check the immigration papers of noncitizens and making it a state crime not to have them. Even if non-citizens might be expected to identify themselves when asked (and that "if" is maybe another whole issue), it hardly seems, well, Constitutional, that anyone who might be considered foreign-looking should have to be prepared to defend himself with appropriate documentation anytime he steps outside.”

Don’t make the mistake of trusting that the leftists are honestly representing this law. Ask youself, in your experience, how often does it happen that the leftists honestly represent the policies and positions they oppose?

Neo-neocon has a post on the very issue which concerns you: Language and that “controversial” Arizona immigration law

cathy said...

Ask youself, in your experience, how often does it happen that the leftists honestly represent the policies and positions they oppose?

Oh. Yeah. I forgot.

Well, that puts me in the running for some sort of Doofus Award, but I'm up against some pro's, so maybe I'll be overlooked...

Thank you for the link -- and the nudge!

nicholas said...

Well, certainly the Times mischaracterizes the entire issue, and as you point out, no surpise there. The law was created to allow local and state law enforcement deal with illegal aliens that chiefly were the responsibility of Federal Law enforcement, but which the Federal government has been increasingly unwilling to address.
Ignoring the Constitution? The law does not do that, nor does it violate the Constitution. It is a response by the people of the state for conditions that affect them and are critically important to them, but which the Federal government has taken no great interest in. The law was passed by the state legislature. It is supported by 70% of the citizens of Arizona, and only opposed by 23%. Here is what Ms. Brewer had to say:

.“Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state,” she said on Friday after signing the immigration bill. “We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.”

That looks pretty clear to me. These people are attempting to protect themselves. President Obama should concern himself with the same issue, not just sell them out.

Ilíon said...

"Well, that puts me in the running for some sort of Doofus Award, but I'm up against some pro's, so maybe I'll be overlooked..."

I don't think it makes one a doofus to automatically assume that others are being honest in what one believes is their error. What would be doofistic is to refuse to acknowledge that the assumption doesn't, in this case, match the reality.