Sheriff of Maricopa County Arpaio: 'I will fight this to the bitter end' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929410]Yes. The national guard may be federalized. Which is what happened. After the States attempted to use it to subvert federal will. Perhaps you should read the thread. Captain Wikipedia says the states are more powerful than the federal government, and the fed should have no say over how state-run organizations operate. I disagreed. Provided important historical precedence to back it up.[/QUOTE] The fed does not, and should not have any say over how state-run organizations organize themselves. They are welcome to prosecute some random asshole for violating civil rights. I also seem to have missed the "important historical precedence". Perhaps you'd like to show me where it is?

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35929432]Captain Law Professor cant even remember my argument of balanced powers.[/QUOTE] That's not what I contended. That's what you dodged with. These are what I responded to: [quote]He's an elected state official and the federal government should have no say over the powers of his position[/quote] [quote]No, that is how hierarchy works here.[/quote] I don't care what else you said. These are wrong. The federal government absolutely has the power to dictate how lower levels of government operate. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;35929442]I also seem to have missed the "important historical precedence". Perhaps you'd like to show me where it is?[/QUOTE] Read the thread.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929444]I don't care what else you said. These are wrong. The federal government absolutely has the power to dictate how lower levels of government operate.[/QUOTE] Are you honestly implying right now that the states are "lower levels of government" than the federal government? As in, inferior?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929444]That's not what I contended. That's what you dodged with. I don't care what else you said. These are wrong. The federal government absolutely has the power to dictate how lower levels of government operate. Read the thread.[/QUOTE] You're trying to be nice, when the third thing you say involves me 'talking out of my ass'. You're want the removal of MCSO's authority to discriminate when they don't even have it. The basis of the complaints is that their discrimination has been illegal. Why are you trying to justify the insertion of government authority into county operations when clearly the answer to the problem is to prosecute Joe Arpaio and his team. Then, at the end of the day, there's a different between a DOJ request and a presidential action. You're way does nothing but let Joe off easy, and take away the powers of the sheriff.

[QUOTE=Morcam;35929514]Are you honestly implying right now that the states are "lower levels of government" than the federal government?[/QUOTE] Uhm. Yes. That's not what I'm implying, that's what I'm directly [I]saying[/I]. They are. Federal law overrules state law in all cases. Federal court rulings override any rulings in the lower courts. They are all accountable to federal law. That is why we HAVE federal law. e.g. if the federal government legalizes gay marriage through either legislation or court precedence, the states can fuck right off. Any states that still attempt to ban it will have to contend with the federal government (and they'll fucking lose.) This is why I referenced Little Rock Central High. The federal government decided segregation was not okay, and the Alabama state government disagreed. The federal government won.

Fuck Joe Apraio, he's a racist corrupt asshole.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35928739]Dude, I don't think you know how the justice system works. It sort of requires investigation to, you know, prove shit.[/QUOTE] You really dont always have to prove something, just have to present enough logical evidence to insert a logical conclusion

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35929542]You're want the removal of MCSO's authority to discriminate when they don't even have it. The basis of the complaints is that their discrimination has been illegal. Why are you trying to justify the insertion of government authority into county operations when clearly the answer to the problem is to prosecute Joe Arpaio and his team. Then, at the end of the day, there's a different between a DOJ request and a presidential action.[/QUOTE] If they don't have that authority, then this should be a pretty easy fix! Federal authority steps in because the Arizona local authority has proven itself incapable of following the United States Constitution (that thing you were educating me on). Specifically, violations of Supreme Court interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The state of Arizona was granted the chances to rectify this, and they have failed to do so. Now is the time that they start contending with their superiors.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929560]e.g. if the federal government legalizes gay marriage through either legislation or court precedence, the states can fuck right off. Any states that still attempt to ban it will have to contend with the federal government (and they'll fucking lose.) [/QUOTE] Until which point the State takes the matter to Federal court and it determines that the legislation falls outside the scope of the federal government(not attacking gay marriage here, in this case I believe the Fed. government will win actually) and they DO win. Except this is completely different, there is no legislation authorizing discrimination. So why are you arguing that point?

[QUOTE=areolop;35929577]You really dont always have to prove something, just have to present enough logical evidence to insert a logical conclusion[/QUOTE] Uhh, no, you need to prove shit. "logical evidence" is called circumstantial evidence. For federal authorities to handle allegations of racial discrimination by police in Arizona, then they will need to investigate and research actual cases of racial discrimination happening. The discriminatory laws were enacted legally under the pretense that they would not be used to single-out any one specific racial ethnicity. Therefore, to be contested, it must be shown that they HAVE been used in such a way--that the authority the state granted itself has been abused to the ends of violating federal law.

wasnt talking about the case. In general

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35929625]Until which point the State takes the matter to Federal court and it determines that the legislation falls outside the scope of the federal government(not attacking gay marriage here, in this case I believe the Fed. government will win actually) and they DO win. Except this is completely different, there is no legislation authorizing discrimination. So why are you arguing that point?[/QUOTE] Actually, the federal courts don't even need to acknowledge a state's petitions. The Supreme Court has the ability to ignore a case when they deem it has already been settled. They typically try only to take cases for which there is no Supreme Court precedence, or otherwise they feel the precedence needs to be revisited. In the hypothetical gay marriage case, the Supreme Court can figure "we already solved this one, shut up and deal w/ it." [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=areolop;35929646]wasnt talking about the case. In general[/QUOTE] The point is that anything that enters a court must have some degree of evidence. If the government is involved, that means investigation. If you're talking about a civil suit between two individuals, then there isn't going to be any formal investigation, of course. However, it is expected that both parties bring evidence to the table for the consideration of the judge/arbitrator. For instance, if you sue someone for violating a contract, you need to bring in both the contract and some record proving they violated it. Logic alone is insubstantial, tangible evidence is an absolute necessity. In this case, that means proof that the authorities granted to police in Arizona have been abused.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929560]Uhm. Yes. That's not what I'm implying, that's what I'm directly [I]saying[/I]. They are. Federal law overrules state law in all cases. Federal court rulings override any rulings in the lower courts. They are all accountable to federal law. That is why we HAVE federal law. e.g. if the federal government legalizes gay marriage through either legislation or court precedence, the states can fuck right off. Any states that still attempt to ban it will have to contend with the federal government (and they'll fucking lose.) This is why I referenced Little Rock Central High. The federal government decided segregation was not okay, and the Alabama state government disagreed. The federal government won.[/QUOTE] For someone with a constitution on their wall, you don't seem to know much about separation of powers. Federal law overrules state law. As long as that law is passed in accordance with the powers entitled to the federal government in the constitution. Why is there a debate over the constitutionality of the health care laws now? Oh, it's probably because those laws have to be passed in accordance with the powers provided to the federal government in the constitution. I'm going to go out on an incredibly short limb and guess you think the federal government should have the absolute authority to pass any policies relating to its citizens, because you probably think the United States would be a better place if the feds could just do what they wanted. Unfortunately for you, that's simply not how the system currently works. The constitution clearly gives some powers to the states, and clearly gives some powers to the fed. If that's what you want, go find a couple hundred other million people and pass an amendment to the constitution and we can have it that way! And gay marriage... doesn't actually have anything to do with this. It can be passed as a law just like any other, and it can be constitutional or not for the federal government to do it or not. Clearly, the power to do that lies with someone, and I'm not going to debate whether that power is with the federal or the state governments. At the end of the day, the supreme court gets to decide. And yeah, if that power is entitled to the feds, any state law arguing with that will be struck down. And if that power isn't entitled to the feds, the federal law will be struck down. Oh, and the Alabama state government tried to use their national guard. The president laughed at that and took control of them. In other words, the state tried to take over a federal organization. The federal government took back their federal organization. Sorry, but you're drawing conclusions from something that simply doesn't support your argument. You're welcome to find something else, though! I'm sure wikipedia could help you find something :) [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35929649]Actually, the federal courts don't even need to acknowledge a state's petitions. The Supreme Court has the ability to ignore a case when they deem it has already been settled. They typically try only to take cases for which there is no Supreme Court precedence, or otherwise they feel the precedence needs to be revisited. In the hypothetical gay marriage case, the Supreme Court can figure "we already solved this one, shut up and deal w/ it." [/QUOTE] So now are we pretending that the supreme court is an imbalanced organization that exists to expand federal power? I'm not sure how to even respond to that... It's just not even relevant.

[QUOTE=Morcam;35929814]Oh, and the Alabama state government tried to use their national guard. The president laughed at that and took control of them. In other words, the state tried to take over a federal organization. The federal government took back their federal organization. Sorry, but you're drawing conclusions from something that simply doesn't support your argument. You're welcome to find something else, though![/QUOTE] The National Guard is not, nor has it ever been, a federal organization. It is a collection of fifty militias organized under the Second Amendment militia clause, each organized and operated on the state-level, who could only be federalized under the Militia Act initially. Later the Federal Government's power to federalize the National Guard (making it a reserve force and not a strict militia) was expanded in legislation such as the National Defense Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. The National Guard can be called upon by the federal government. It is, however, by its very nature and origin, a [I]state[/I] militia. It has never been a federal organization. It is a state organization that, like all state organizations, must answer to the federal government if told to do so.

[QUOTE=Morcam;35929814]I'm going to go out on an incredibly short limb and guess you think the federal government should have the absolute authority to pass any policies relating to its citizens, because you probably think the United States would be a better place if the feds could just do what they wanted. Unfortunately for you, that's simply not how the system currently works. The constitution clearly gives some powers to the states, and clearly gives some powers to the fed. If that's what you want, go find a couple hundred other million people and pass an amendment to the constitution and we can have it that way![/QUOTE] stop posting your patronizing, ignorant, contentless garbage posts are completely unnecessary in a thread like this

[QUOTE=Morcam;35929814]So now are we pretending that the supreme court is an imbalanced organization that exists to expand federal power? I'm not sure how to even respond to that...[/QUOTE] Hey let's make wild assumptions based upon the fact that the Supreme Court has the ability to ignore some of the thousands and thousands of petitions they receive on an annual basis. If they have ruled once, they typically do not rule again. This is not to "expand federal power," this is to keep the Supreme Court on task and prevent uppity morons from stalling them with dead-horse-beatings. Without that power, it would be possible to filibuster the Supreme Court, arguably the single-most powerful organization in the entirety of the United States.

[QUOTE=Kalibos;35929923]stop posting your patronizing, ignorant, contentless garbage posts are completely unnecessary in a thread like this[/QUOTE] Do you think I've been more crude than Lankist? Duly noted. I'm also not entirely sure what you think a "thread like this" is supposed to be. Welcome to sensationalist headlines, I guess?

[QUOTE=Morcam;35929961]Do you think I've been more crude than Lankist? Duly noted.[/QUOTE] you just did it again stop reading a line, making a ridiculous assumption based on... nothing, that I can see, then extrapolating it to fit into your posts it makes you look fucking crazy to answer your question, yes, via patronizing, but the problem is what I just outlined above, not how "crude" you sound. you just sound like a goddamn idiot

[QUOTE=Lankist;35929920]The National Guard is not, nor has it ever been, a federal organization. It is a collection of fifty militias organized under the Second Amendment militia clause, each organized and operated on the state-level, who could only be federalized under the Militia Act initially. Later the Federal Government's power to federalize the National Guard (making it a reserve force and not a strict militia) was expanded in legislation such as the National Defense Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. The National Guard can be called upon by the federal government. It is, however, by its very nature and origin, a [I]state[/I] militia. It has never been a federal organization. It is a state organization that, like all state organizations, must answer to the federal government if told to do so.[/QUOTE] No, it is a state organization that is unique, in that it can be told to answer to the federal government for any reason. That's why I'm saying it's a bad example. This thread is about the sheriff's department. The federal government does not have the authority to reorganize a sheriff's department. That power lies with the state. It absolutely has the power to arrest the racist who is abusing the power given to him, because he is breaking federal law against discrimination. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kalibos;35930002]you just did it again stop reading a line, making a ridiculous assumption based on... nothing, that I can see, then extrapolating it to fit into your posts it makes you look fucking crazy to answer your question, yes, via patronizing, but the problem is what I just outlined above, not how "crude" you sound. you just sound like a goddamn idiot[/QUOTE] So in other words, you just disagree with me. I made that assumption because you told me to stop posting, because I was being crude and contentless, and not anyone else in the thread. Does that not make sense to you?

[QUOTE=Morcam;35930055]This thread is about the sheriff's department. The federal government does not have the authority to reorganize a sheriff's department. That power lies with the state. It absolutely has the power to arrest the racist who is abusing the power given to him, because he is breaking federal law against discrimination.[/QUOTE] Since when is a civil suit between the Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office "reorganization?" I'm sorry, did you read the article? Because you seem to think that Obama is going down to Arizona and taking names, when the reality is that a federal judge will decide this case.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35930096]Since when is a civil suit between the Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office "reorganization?" I'm sorry, did you read the article? Because you seem to think that Obama is going down to Arizona and taking names, when the reality is that a federal judge will decide this case.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I came in midway through, so you probably don't really know my position on this. You and I both support Arpaio getting out of his office. The difference that we disagree on is that I'm not happy about the government monitor. That is effectively trying to put a federal official (the monitor) over top of the sheriff himself, i.e. reorganization by the federal government of a state office. Whether Arpaio is trying to cover his ass by blowing up the issue of the monitor is probably pretty obvious. It's called sensationalist headlines.

[QUOTE=Kalibos;35929923]stop posting your patronizing, ignorant, contentless garbage posts are completely unnecessary in a thread like this[/QUOTE] and Lankist's posts are not patronizing, ignorant, contentless garbage and are completely unnecessary in a thread like this?

[QUOTE=areolop;35930337]and Lankist's posts are not patronizing, ignorant, contentless garbage and are completely unnecessary in a thread like this?[/QUOTE] no

[QUOTE=Lankist;35928370]No it fucking isn't. You break federal laws, you deal with the federal government. That's why we HAVE a federal government. The states are not sovereign nations in and of themselves; they answer to the top levels of government. Stop talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it is. We have differing spheres of government in the U.S.. Federal cannot deter state's rights of powers, just like the states can't interfere with the Federal's. It's the balancing act the Framer's put in place for good reason.

[QUOTE=areolop;35930337]and Lankist's posts are not patronizing, ignorant, contentless garbage and are completely unnecessary in a thread like this?[/QUOTE]Not in the slightest.

[QUOTE=Doneeh;35930408]Federal cannot deter state's rights of powers[/QUOTE] Do I really need to bring up all the times that happened? [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] I mean for FUCKS sakes the federalists won that argument before the Constitution was even written. We tried the shit you're pushing. They were called the Articles of Confederation. Guess how they turned out.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35930475]Do I really need to bring up all the times that happened?[/QUOTE] It happens, that's pretty damn obvious. But here's the thing, it shouldn't because that's not how it's supposed to work. The Framers of the Constitution probably didn't intend for America to be the way it is now, what with all this technology and diversity. To clarify my point: It was never meant to happen, it does anyway, things become a cluster of misinformation, rule-bending, and power abuse. I'm sure this happens to almost any country, but the U.S. has the most states out of any country, I'm pretty sure. The Federal government then has to bend rules to accommodate the large size of the country and make sure that it can still hold power over the states. [QUOTE=Lankist;35930475]I mean for FUCKS sakes the federalists won that argument before the Constitution was even written. We tried the shit you're pushing. They were called the Articles of Confederation. Guess how they turned out.[/QUOTE] You seriously need to chill out a bit. Do you think a bunch of men who were birthing an [I]entire nation[/I] were going to get it right the first time? Chances are, that wouldn't happen without serious reformation, which we did. Point is, we constructed spheres of powers to accommodate both entities and make sure neither could interfere where they shouldn't with the other. Federal is obviously more powerful to an extent, but if the states gang up, they can do a good amount of work with their power.

[QUOTE=Doneeh;35930540]It happens, that's pretty damn obvious. But here's the thing, it shouldn't because that's not how it's supposed to work. The Framers of the Constitution probably didn't intend for America to be the way it is now, what with all this technology and diversity. [/QUOTE] Uhm, the framers of the Constitution agreed upon Federalist ideals given the Articles of Confederation (which completely empowered the states and made them entirely unaccountable to the federal government, as you suggested) was an unstable piece of shit that just about tore the brand new country apart in a ridiculous amount of rebellions. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] There's like ten years between when we won the war and when we enacted the Constitution. During those ten years we tried that. It seriously [I]did not[/I] work. Please do not speak on the behalf of the framers of the Constitution when you are clearly unaware of the history behind it. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doneeh;35930540]You seriously need to chill out a bit. Do you think a bunch of men who were birthing an [I]entire nation[/I] were going to get it right the first time? Chances are, that wouldn't happen without serious reformation, which we did. Point is, we constructed spheres of powers to accommodate both entities and make sure neither could interfere where they shouldn't with the other. Federal is obviously more powerful to an extent, but if the states gang up, they can do a good amount of work with their power.[/QUOTE] I'm chill. You simply don't know the history behind the document you're expounding upon. The Constitution is a compromise in Federalism. It grants significant power to the federal government, enough of which to keep the states in line and from, you know, declaring war on one another. (Because that sort of happened.) Right now you're arguing against Federalism, which is widely recognized as the very basis of our Constitution. Some of the framers didn't [I]like[/I] it, but they recognized that a decentralized government was far too unstable and would not last for any period of time before the states started warring with one another.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35930575]Uhm, the framers of the Constitution agreed upon Federalist ideals given the Articles of Confederation (which completely empowered the states and made them entirely unaccountable to the federal government, as you suggested) was an unstable piece of shit that just about tore the brand new country apart in a ridiculous amount of rebellions. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] There's like ten years between when we won the war and when we enacted the Constitution. During those ten years we tried that. It seriously [I]did not[/I] work. Please do not speak on the behalf of the framers of the Constitution when you are clearly unaware of the history behind it.[/QUOTE] Are you sure it's me? Because you seem to be spewing random shit wildly about. Yeah, it's an established fact the Framers fucked up the first time, who doesn't know that shit? But for some reason, you keep dodging the fact that [I]spheres of powers[/I] were an important part that was [I]necessary[/I] both given times. Also, I didn't suggest that the states were "entirely unaccountable to the federal government." I suggested that there were powers each specifically had that were unalienable [I]on paper. [/I] This is seriously like talking to a brick wall. This shit ain't worth my time. Enjoy yourself.

[QUOTE=Doneeh;35930645]Are you sure it's me? Because you seem to be spewing random shit wildly about. Yeah, it's an established fact the Framers fucked up the first time, who doesn't know that shit? But for some reason, you keep dodging the fact that [I]spheres of powers[/I] were an important part that was [I]necessary[/I] both given times. Also, I didn't suggest that the states were "entirely unaccountable to the federal government." I suggested that there were powers each specifically had that were unalienable [I]on paper.[/I][/QUOTE] Oh my god right now have you even so much as googled the Federalist Papers? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers[/url] Here they are on Wikipedia if you're lazy. The Founding Fathers INTENDED for a strong, central government which can keep everything together. It's all right there, in the papers [I]advocating[/I] ratification of the Constitution. [editline]12th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doneeh;35930645]This is seriously like talking to a brick wall. This shit ain't worth my time. Enjoy yourself.[/QUOTE] Yes. A brick wall that knows what it's talking about. Seriously, don't come in here talking about the Constitution if you don't even know what Federalism is. Saying "constitution!" is not your automatic I-win phrase. Sometimes someone actually knows a thing or two about it.