Alabama Proves New Law Isn't Racist

[Brit4064]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At a checkpoint, you don't need reasonable suspicion according to the Supreme Court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So a SCOTUS decision IS the Law of the Land then. What I've been telling you all along dimwit! You change direction faster than a Mitty weather-vane!

What about that Plyer vs Doe decision which you formerly didn't believe was the Law? If you still stand by your old position (or try and weasel out of), answer why didn't AL make their HB56 Law ban all illegal immigrant kids from their public schools?

[federale86]

No Brain Brit can't deal with the issues. Congress makes laws, State legislatures make laws. The Supreme Court interprets laws and the Constitution. It does not make laws.

In the case of checkpoints, State legislatures and Congress made laws making them legal. SCOTUS said the laws did not violate the Constitution.

Alabama is seeking to prepare evidence to use to challenge Plyer and get the Supreme Court to reverse it.

It did not do so because it needs evidence of the impact of illegals because Plyer stated that there was no impact of illegal alien students on Texas.

In fact, California did that, but the California Governor and AG refused to defend the law.

But in any event, Alabama has decided on its strategy. But in any event, it is going after Plyer, not directly, but a challenge just the same.

And Plyer will go down. Just as SCOTUS upheld Arizona E-Verify that you said would be overturned.

[Brit4064]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Congress makes laws, State legislatures make laws. The Supreme Court interprets laws and the Constitution. It does not make laws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said it made laws. I said a SCOTUS decision, once made becomes the Law of the Land. Try as you might Mitty-weathervane, it ain't gonna work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Alabama is seeking to prepare evidence to use to challenge Plyer and get the Supreme Court to reverse it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not going very well is it? So far the school information gathering has been blocked. If AL were so sure this provision was legal and consitutional, it wouldn't have been blocked.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And Plyer will go down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without the above information available it won't. Period.

[Fredy]

May God have mercy on your souls . hate is the result of fear . One day we are all going to give account to God of the things we have said and done . So think first what you say . The most famous immigrant was Jesus Christ , who did not have a place to be born but was born in a manger , in the bible Abraham , the great men of the bible did not have a country .

[Aroha]

Hang on ... Mary and Joseph were both from Israel. Jesus was born in Israel. Yes, he was an immigrant to Egypt while escaping the persecution of Herod, but his being born in a manger had nothing to do with immigration.

[federale86]

"Law of the Land" is not a term of legislative or Constitutional law. That is a term used by people who have not training in the law or the Constitution.

Nor those who do not understand the separation of powers between the three branches of the Federal government.

Congress makes laws. The president enforces laws. The SC interprets laws and the Constitution. They don't make law.

[Brit4064]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Congress makes laws. The president enforces laws. The SC interprets laws and the Constitution. They don't make law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you ever read anything? Did I ever say the SCOTUS makes law?? Of course it doesn't make law, it interprets it and once their decision is made it is then the Law. Otherwise what point would there be in having a SCOTUS whose outcome wasn't legally binding?

Those who claim "the law isn't settled" because it's pending a SCOTUS decision are talking BS. Until SCOTUS rules on it..it is the Law.

Try arguing to a cop your innocence after being arrested for murder of an abortion doctor that Roe vs Wade "isn't settled therefore it's not the law" and see how far you get LOL

[federale86]

No Brained Brit, that is exactly what you said. The law of the land are acts of congress and the Constitution. An interpretation of the law is not the law. It is an interpretation.

[Brit4064]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An interpretation of the law is not the law. It is an interpretation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An interpretation that becomes Law of the Land. If it weren't legally binding there would be no point in having a SCOTUS. FedNUT the idiot.

[federale86]

No Brain Brit, check a law dictionary, there is no such thing as "The Law of the Land." Except that the Constitution is the supreme law of land. But that ain't a SC decision.

[Brit4064]

The sentence has been deleted by the administrator for violating the discussion board rules. Once an SC decision is made it IS effectively the Law of the Land or whatever you like to call it.

If a State makes a law which is challenged ie. AL and the SCOTUS rules against them, tough luck AL.

[Don Fernandez]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
No Brain Brit, check a law dictionary, there is no such thing as "The Law of the Land." Except that the Constitution is the supreme law of land. But that ain't a SC decision.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_land

[Don Fernandez]

Plyer??? Maybe you meant Plyler v Doe?