Fox: Napolitano Admits She Hasn't Read Arizona Immigration Law in 'Detail' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031272]I think you have what's unconstitutional mixed up with what's not. The Arazona law: constitutional (Profiling because of race is not allowed.) Obamacare: unconstitutional (You can't force people to buy stuff they don't want just because they do is exist. The commerce clause does not allow for this.) [/QUOTE] It's a pretty piss-poor mistake to assume that I'm on the left because I'm not on the right. I can't stand that black-and-white view of things. Yes, Obamacare is invasive. It's taking government in the wrong direction. I'm not a supporter of it, but I'll get over it. Racial profiling isn't my area of concern - it's the fact that 'reasonable suspicion' of illegal immigration is impossible. This law could technically be constitutional, but if that were the case, the bill would literally have no effect - the only detentions that could result from this are unconstitutional. Give me an example scenario of a constitutionally valid detainment that's based on suspicion of illegal immigration. "A person is suspected of being in the US illegally because of ________"

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031793]Income tax is something the Government is allowed to have, regardless of weather we like it or not. Also, Income tax is not insurance. It's a Tax and the constitution allows it. You aren't forced to buy Life insurance are you? What about Flood insurance?[/QUOTE] Yes you are. If you live in a high risk area you are required by law to buy flood insurance. Oh, and while we're at it I'd like you to point out specifically where in the constitution that it forbids the government from forcing you to buy insurance.

@ Metonoia: A person suspected of being an illegal because they fail to show some kind of ID upon being stopped for speeding. Or maybe they are arrested for domestic violence after a loud fight with a spouse. They can't prove they are a citizen and the info they do give, such as a name, proves inconclusive.

[QUOTE=Melkor;22032508]Yes you are. If you live in a high risk area you are required to buy flood insurance.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure of other states but I know in Texas you have to have insurance in order to be eligible for a Driver's Licence. If the police pull you over, say for speeding or some sort of accident, and you can't provide some evidence of insurance, you will be fined steeply.

[QUOTE=Melkor;22032508]Yes you are. If you live in a high risk area you are required to buy flood insurance.[/QUOTE] And if you don't live in a high risk area? Point is if you don't need it you shouldn't have to get it. I'm also guessing that in high risk areas that it may be tied to home insurance.

[QUOTE=Glaber;22032599]And if you don't live in a high risk area? Point is if you don't need it you shouldn't have to get it. I'm also guessing that in high risk areas that it may be tied to home insurance.[/QUOTE] And my point is that it's not unconstitutional. I said nothing about whether it was a good idea or not.

So what purchasable good is health insurance tied to? Auto is tied to vechials, and both home and flood are tied to houses (or apartments, etc) To opt out of auto, don't buy a vechal. to opt out of home insurance, move in with someone else or go homeless (Bad idea, but still a choice). What purchasable good is health insurance tied to that you can refuse to buy?

[QUOTE=Glaber;22031793]Income tax is something the Government is allowed to have, regardless of weather we like it or not.[/QUOTE] Not according to the Paultards, it isn't. [editline]01:15AM[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ[/media]

[QUOTE=Glaber;22032775]So what purchasable good is health insurance tied to? Auto is tied to vechials, and both home and flood are tied to houses (or apartments, etc) To opt out of auto, don't buy a vechal. to opt out of home insurance, move in with someone else or go homeless (Bad idea, but still a choice). What purchasable good is health insurance tied to that you can refuse to buy?[/QUOTE] Again not unconstitutional. Just a bad idea. And you still haven't told me where in the constitution that it specifically forbids this. Oh, and I'm against Obama-Care by the way.

[QUOTE=TH89;22032839]Not according to the Paultards, it isn't. [editline]01:15AM[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ[/media][/QUOTE] I think taxes are allowed specifically in the constitution... besides, I doubt anybody here doesn't support the income tax, at least in concept. The government has to get cash from somewhere, it's just that they go a little crazy sometimes. On the middle class, anyway.

[QUOTE=Melkor;22032886]Again not unconstitutional. Just a bad idea. And you still haven't told me where in the constitution that it specifically forbids this. Oh, and I'm against Obama-Care by the way.[/QUOTE] I think a better question is where in the constitution does it grant them the power to do this. Some might argue the commerce clause, but without saying how not buying insurance ties in with it. As it is right now there is no interstate buying of health insurance.

[QUOTE=Glaber;22033047]I think a better question is where in the constitution does it grant them the power to do this. Some might argue the commerce clause, but without saying how not buying insurance ties in with it. As it is right now there is no interstate buying of health insurance.[/QUOTE] That's not how the constitution works. If something is not forbidden by the constitution then it's not unconstitutional. End of story.

[QUOTE=Melkor;22033095]That's not how the constitution works. If something is not forbidden by the constitution then it's not unconstitutional. End of story.[/QUOTE] Learn how the constitution works. If it is not mentioned in the constitution it falls under the 10th amendment.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;22033235]Learn how the constitution works. If it is not mentioned in the constitution it falls under the 10th amendment.[/QUOTE] The problem is that the 10th amendment and the Necessary and Proper clause tend to conflict.

Problem here is that even with the Necessary and Proper clause there is no interstate commerce to regulate when it comes to health insurance. The state borders are closed to interstate health insurance commerce.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;22033418]The problem is that the 10th amendment and the Necessary and Proper clause tend to conflict.[/QUOTE] It doesn't conflict, it just says the United States Government has the right to make laws that allow them to use their enumerated powers.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;22032915]I think taxes are allowed specifically in the constitution... besides, I doubt anybody here doesn't support the income tax, at least in concept. The government has to get cash from somewhere, it's just that they go a little crazy sometimes. On the middle class, anyway.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi"]Income tax is specifically OK'd by the constitution.[/URL]

What a dumb hoe.

I'd be good with just a 20% flat tax.

[QUOTE=the_KMM;22034815]I'd be good with just a 20% flat tax.[/QUOTE] flat taxes are fucking stupid

Wait, so what is the excuse for the forcing people to buy insurance thing? Because honestly, there is no excuse, that's just flat out bullshit. "Buy insurance or get fined thousands"

[QUOTE=Lazor;22034852]flat taxes are fucking stupid[/QUOTE] Elaborate.

Stop calling it Obama-care, it sounds dumb as shit, especially when Obama-care wasn't even conceived by Obama.

[QUOTE=Glaber;22032158]That quote from the bill backs up what dogmachines said. Do you even know what qualifies for a lawful contact? A common example is being pulled over for speeding. [/QUOTE] Another example is being pulled over for nothing. [editline]10:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=the_KMM;22034815]I'd be good with just a 20% flat tax.[/QUOTE] Wow, 20%. You think your country is in the shitter now, just you wait and see what happens when everyone only has to pay 20%. Say goodbye to communications infrastructure, public transit, roads, cops, the military, parks, schools, the list goes on and on. And yes, privatizing all of these things would be a HORRIBLE idea.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;22035666]Another example is being pulled over for nothing.[/QUOTE] and if you're black or brown or wearing a turban you're fucked.

[QUOTE=Glaber;22033724]Problem here is that even with the Necessary and Proper clause there is no interstate commerce to regulate when it comes to health insurance. The state borders are closed to interstate health insurance commerce.[/QUOTE] Actually, there is interstate healthcare commerce under the Congressional plan.

[QUOTE=JDK721;22035697]and if you're black or brown or wearing a turban you're fucked.[/QUOTE] There was an asshole cop in my town who had it out for me. Know what he pulled me over for once? "Dangerously underinflated tires". I checked the air pressure the week prior. The funny part? I had an air pressure gauge in the car. Boy, was his face red. So yeah, cops don't need to actually see you doing something illegal to make "lawful contact".

[QUOTE=Zeke129;22035720]There was an asshole cop in my town who had it out for me. Know what he pulled me over for once? "Dangerously underinflated tires". I checked the air pressure the week prior. The funny part? I had an air pressure gauge in the car. Boy, was his face red. So yeah, cops don't need to actually see you doing something illegal to make "lawful contact".[/QUOTE] did you get his name and badge # to report him?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;22035720]There was an asshole cop in my town who had it out for me. Know what he pulled me over for once? "Dangerously underinflated tires". I checked the air pressure the week prior. The funny part? I had an air pressure gauge in the car. Boy, was his face red. So yeah, cops don't need to actually see you doing something illegal to make "lawful contact".[/QUOTE] Don't forget the new amendment. That language was from the original bill, if I'm not mistaken. Now you actually have to be arrested(for a legit reason) and have probable cause. People would really have to go out of their way to racially profile under the law, and even then it may not hold up.

[QUOTE=JDK721;22035764]did you get his name and badge # to report him?[/QUOTE] No, but I think he's been fired or transferred since so I don't really care anymore. [QUOTE=dogmachines;22035801]Don't forget the new amendment. That language was from the original bill, if I'm not mistaken. Now you actually have to be arrested(for a legit reason) and have probable cause. People would really have to go out of their way to racially profile under the law, and even then it may not hold up.[/QUOTE] Well the amendment addresses most of the concerns I had about it. We just have to wait and see what happens in the courts now.