Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If they're tried by the state first and it's a Federal offense, someone already screwed up.

Oh.

We made it to pg 20. Talking about politics.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And dogma, this case was overturned by Benton v. Maryland, as the court here rules that the 5th Amendment only applies to Federal actions.

If that were true, then the larceny charge in the case of Benton v. Maryland would not have been considered subject to double jeopardy. Benton v. Maryland is about the same sovereign trying the same person for the same crime, and the application of the 5th amendment, via the 14th amendment, to states. It was ruled that Maryland could not convict Benton of larceny, after having previously acquitted him, because the states are subject to double jeopardy as they are subject to the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

BaronIveagh wrote:If they're tried by the state first and it's a Federal offense, someone already screwed up.

Most likely, yes. Though it may also be a case of political dissent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:So wait, a person found not guilty of a particular crime by a state court can still be found guilty by a federal court? (But not the other way around?)

As I understand it, yes. However, it is worth noting that cases where the same charges are subject to two different sovereigns are rare. Killing a federal agent is one of the more likely ones to occur, while firing a gun in one state and killing someone in another is a more fanciful example.

Killing a federal agent means you are pretty fethed anyway. I'm sure any charges the state can tack on would be moot at that point.

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
And dogma, this case was overturned by Benton v. Maryland, as the court here rules that the 5th Amendment only applies to Federal actions.

If that were true, then the larceny charge in the case of Benton v. Maryland would not have been considered subject to double jeopardy. Benton v. Maryland is about the same sovereign trying the same person for the same crime, and the application of the 5th amendment, via the 14th amendment, to states. It was ruled that Maryland could not convict Benton of larceny, after having previously acquitted him, because the states are subject to double jeopardy as they are subject to the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

In 1922, UNITED STATES v.LANZA et al the court held the view that the 5th Amendment only applied to Federal actions, as part of the ruling, and upheld this view in Palko v. Connecticut. In 1969, Benton v. Maryland, that ruling was overturned, stipulating that the 5th Amendment did, indeed, apply to state courts.

@Fate: Yes. You can be found guilty of it even if you were not present as proved by witnesses, DNA, and the FBI's own crime labs ballistics, and still serve a life sentence.

Without getting Mod-locked.

@Frazz, regarding fixing your fence and random quotes of ourselves...


"yes I'll do it for transportation cost, and you get me a passport"

(that's not a very memorable quote, huh? my bad.)

-me, a couple of years back when I had to go record in New York and Cannes and Milan.

That's actually what got me back on the grid after I.D. loss. They pulled the strings to get me the new passport, etc, I never charged a dime for the actual work I did for the soundtrack I was just happy to finally exist again legally. (plus its fun to fly accross the atlantic 20 times a year on someone elses budget).

helgrenze wrote:Not Yet. If you read that post, and others, you would have noticed that the INS, currently responsible for this enforcement, is not doing their job. This law allows local and state police to do the job.

Right, and for the next part of our teeth pulling exercise, you will note that this AZ law is predominantly oriented on the identification and return of illegals to Mexico, and not on reducing demand for Mexican labour in the US.

Which was my point that I have explained a lot of times now. If AZ wants to solve this problem itself, it could do so by focussing on reducing demand, and not on asking reasonably suspicious people if to show they're not illegal.

helgrenze wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:... but that's double jeopardy, since if you beat the charge in state court they could charge you again in Federal.

Actually.... no. Federal Law takes precident. If a crime has local, state, and federal penalties, the Fedreal case takes precident. However, if you do beat it in fed court, nothing stops state or local from trial on related crimes.

Actually it is precedent.

And the Fed does not always lead. It is whomever caught you takes first shot. It goes both ways.

As to it being double jeopardy. The answer is:

In theory and original intent of the law, a resounding yes it is double jeopardy.

In current practice of the law, it does not qualify as double jeopardy.

The reason for this goes back to the U.S.'s unconstitutional "War on Crime/Drugs" which could also be renamed to a War on Civil Liberties. While the U.S. government's practice of violating its own laws is nothing new, the pace picked up considerably in the last half of the 20th century. JFK's use of the military to enforce civil law was a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, LBJ continued to do the same on a larger scale. Nixon declared War on Drugs, Reagan expanded the War on Drugs through a nearly unchecked use of executive orders, and Bush expanded this War even further with each of these expansion giving increased authority to the government and its respective agencies. The Clinton administration continued the war on drugs and laid the groundwork for what later became Bush no. 2's War on Terror while, simultaneously, launching a full scale assault on the second ammendment. In the past 30 years every politician has had to have a "Tough on Crime" policy that he can point to during election time. For 30 years this country has steadily written and enacted legislation that has progressively made it easier to get a conviction. Do any of you believe that such a judicial system can undergo 30 years of one-sided legislation and still be balanced or fair? Each election Laws are passed that are designed to allow our government to break its own laws. Sadly, one of these laws is the Double Jeopardy Law(autrefois acquit or autrefois convict pre-emptory plea) where if the individual has already been found innocent or guilty of a charge that the case is dismissed as already resolved. In the late 1980's-early 1990's as a part of this "War on Crime", the U.S. created an exploitable loophole in the law by giving the same crime different names. One name is the "States" name for an offense and the other is the "Fed Gov's". There are to many such manipulations of the judicial system to list here but I can give the reasoning and why these Wars on domestic issues were made unconstitutional by the architects of our system.

People might ask, "If Declaring war on domestic social problems is unconstitutional then why is it so widely used and accepted?". The answer lies in definitional debates about the purpose of war. Some definitions of war clearly state it is a form of international relations where organized violence is used as an instrument of power by sovereign nation-states but then a military historian/theorist named Carl von Clausewitz defined it as "an act of violence intended to compel opponents to fulfill our will." He then postulated that the real purpose of war was to put an end to any opposition. His teachings have often been misinterpreted and taken to extremes where declaring war on a domestic issue is acceptable. The problem of doing such is that it will be used to shut down debate, stifle or chill any voices of dissent, rally society around an enemy, seize the high moral ground, and divert resources from one set of solutions to another, usually a military-based solution set. As a political tool for capturing and maintaining power, declaring war is simply too irresistible for power seekers to resist. One of the Architects of our system, Thomas Jefferson I believe*, regarded this as one of the primary threats to democracy because war clouds the nation's populace with an anti-intellectual climate, and you can't remain both ignorant and free at the same time.


* (Will try to find where this is paraphrased from) if someone really needs such

Edited doubled words

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany."

"That is understood. "

"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders."

"That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering

BaronIveagh wrote:
In 1922, UNITED STATES v.LANZA et al the court held the view that the 5th Amendment only applied to Federal actions, as part of the ruling, and upheld this view in Palko v. Connecticut. In 1969, Benton v. Maryland, that ruling was overturned, stipulating that the 5th Amendment did, indeed, apply to state courts.

While your point is correct, you are missing the relevant component of the decision. In United States v. Lanza the Supreme Court held that state and federal governments each possessed separate sovereignty to punish offenses against their established statutes. What this means for the purposes of this argument is that the state of Washington was not subject to the double jeopardy protections outlined in the US Constitution; meaning both that they could theoretically prosecute on the same evidence as often as they wished, and that such prosecution would not count against any federal prosecution.

In both cases, double jeopardy is subject to exception in cases of separate sovereigns.

It is worth noting that Palko v. Connecticut was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the decision in Benton v. Maryland, which finally forced states to adhere to the 5th amendment protection against double jeopardy.

brilliant on both counts focused and baron

sebster wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Not Yet. If you read that post, and others, you would have noticed that the INS, currently responsible for this enforcement, is not doing their job. This law allows local and state police to do the job.

Right, and for the next part of our teeth pulling exercise, you will note that this AZ law is predominantly oriented on the identification and return of illegals to Mexico, and not on reducing demand for Mexican labour in the US.

Which was my point that I have explained a lot of times now. If AZ wants to solve this problem itself, it could do so by focussing on reducing demand, and not on asking reasonably suspicious people if to show they're not illegal.

Reading material for you seb....taken from http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm

Sec. 8. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

Seems plenty clear to me that this says hiring "unauthorized Aliens" is a violation of this law.

D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A.

I believe this means a court date for the Employer.

F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall:

(a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

(b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

(c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

(v) The duration of the violation.

(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

(d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

Penalties for the first offense.

2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.

A second offense and ..Out Of Business!!

Wanna say this law doesnt go after the jobs again? Please, prove me wrong with my own evidence listed here.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/04/pro-immigration-violence-escalates/

EDITORIAL: Pro-immigration violence escalatesTea Party pacifism contrasts favorably to liberal arrestsFont Size -+PrintEmailCommentTweet this!Yahoo!
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Blatant falsehoods about Arizona's new immigration law keep piling up. Not only is the substance of the law grossly distorted, the liberal media is demonizing anyone who supports the reform and minimizing any wrongs by those opposing it.

Compare the media's hostile treatment of peaceful Tea Party protests to the sometimes violent leftist demonstrations against Arizona's law. No Tea Party demonstrators have been arrested during anti-government gatherings, and none has thrown rocks or broken bottles at police. This pacifist Tea Party track record spans multiple national demonstrations with crowds ranging from 300,000 at the April 15 Tax Day protest to around a million at September's demonstration against Obamacare.

The number of leftist agitators against Arizona's new immigration bill are far smaller. Yet, from the very first demonstration in Phoenix when the bill was signed on April 23, liberal protests have been marked by violence and arrests. In Chicago last week, the local Fox station reported that "police clashed with demonstrators" and protesters blocked vehicles; 24 were arrested. A Sunday march in Santa Cruz, Calif., damaged 18 businesses, with repair costs reaching an estimated $100,000. In San Francisco, three people were beaten by protesters, with two arrested. During a pro-illegal-immigration protest outside the White House on Saturday, 35 were arrested. The list goes on.

The same media bias comes into play when charges of fascism are bandied about against political opponents. In August, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tarred Tea Partiers as fascists because - she claimed - they were "carrying swastikas and symbols like that." The charges were broadcast by media nationwide. But when pushed for evidence to back up her claim, Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami provided The Washington Times with a single picture of a Tea Partier carrying a poster of a swastika with a line drawn through it, clearly signaling that fascist policies should be banned, which was the opposite of Mrs. Pelosi point.

Leftists are dusting off the old Nazi slur to use against their opponents in this new immigration debate. A Google news search found more than 900 news stories for "Arizona immigration law Nazi." A review of the articles found very few cases where charges of racism were questioned. Disgraced Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony "compared Arizona to Nazi Germany," according to the Los Angeles Times. A Houston Chronicle headline informed that "Signs depict [Arizona] Gov. [Jan] Brewer as Nazi at Dallas rally." KNX radio in Los Angeles reported signs labeling Mrs. Brewer as "the next Hitler." Cindy Lugo, a Long Beach City College student, ranted, "I think what [Mrs. Brewer is] doing in Arizona is similar to what Hitler did in Germany." It's a safe assumption Cindy isn't a history major.

Amidst all this hate-filled rhetoric by liberals and Democrats across the country, President Obama went on the attack against conservatives for criticizing government. "But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," the president said. "It can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response." Mr. Obama knows violent extremist elements pretty well - they currently are his most vocal supporters.

Cue Shuma and Dogma...........


Seems as if the blood of innocents is being spilled by those who claim the right side are violent.

Ah, the irony.

It's nice to see the wishy-washy liberals are growing some balls at last.

Balls equates to violence?

Do you really wanna go down that road?

Frazzled wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/04/pro-immigration-violence-escalates/

EDITORIAL: Pro-immigration violence escalatesTea Party pacifism contrasts favorably to liberal arrestsFont Size -+PrintEmailCommentTweet this!Yahoo!
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Blatant falsehoods about Arizona's new immigration law keep piling up. Not only is the substance of the law grossly distorted, the liberal media is demonizing anyone who supports the reform and minimizing any wrongs by those opposing it.

Compare the media's hostile treatment of peaceful Tea Party protests to the sometimes violent leftist demonstrations against Arizona's law. No Tea Party demonstrators have been arrested during anti-government gatherings, and none has thrown rocks or broken bottles at police. This pacifist Tea Party track record spans multiple national demonstrations with crowds ranging from 300,000 at the April 15 Tax Day protest to around a million at September's demonstration against Obamacare.

The number of leftist agitators against Arizona's new immigration bill are far smaller. Yet, from the very first demonstration in Phoenix when the bill was signed on April 23, liberal protests have been marked by violence and arrests. In Chicago last week, the local Fox station reported that "police clashed with demonstrators" and protesters blocked vehicles; 24 were arrested. A Sunday march in Santa Cruz, Calif., damaged 18 businesses, with repair costs reaching an estimated $100,000. In San Francisco, three people were beaten by protesters, with two arrested. During a pro-illegal-immigration protest outside the White House on Saturday, 35 were arrested. The list goes on.

The same media bias comes into play when charges of fascism are bandied about against political opponents. In August, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tarred Tea Partiers as fascists because - she claimed - they were "carrying swastikas and symbols like that." The charges were broadcast by media nationwide. But when pushed for evidence to back up her claim, Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami provided The Washington Times with a single picture of a Tea Partier carrying a poster of a swastika with a line drawn through it, clearly signaling that fascist policies should be banned, which was the opposite of Mrs. Pelosi point.

Leftists are dusting off the old Nazi slur to use against their opponents in this new immigration debate. A Google news search found more than 900 news stories for "Arizona immigration law Nazi." A review of the articles found very few cases where charges of racism were questioned. Disgraced Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony "compared Arizona to Nazi Germany," according to the Los Angeles Times. A Houston Chronicle headline informed that "Signs depict [Arizona] Gov. [Jan] Brewer as Nazi at Dallas rally." KNX radio in Los Angeles reported signs labeling Mrs. Brewer as "the next Hitler." Cindy Lugo, a Long Beach City College student, ranted, "I think what [Mrs. Brewer is] doing in Arizona is similar to what Hitler did in Germany." It's a safe assumption Cindy isn't a history major.

Amidst all this hate-filled rhetoric by liberals and Democrats across the country, President Obama went on the attack against conservatives for criticizing government. "But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," the president said. "It can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response." Mr. Obama knows violent extremist elements pretty well - they currently are his most vocal supporters.

Considering he uses the term "Obamacare" with a straight face and accuses Obama of being a supporter of terrorism, you might want to post a counter-balance so we can get a clearer picture.

Leftists are dusting off the old Nazi slur to use against their opponents in this new immigration debate.

I've yet to see any protest in the last few years where someone hasn't accused/labelled the opposition as Nazis. It's like Godwin's law has escaped the internet and now roams the world at will.

True that, althoguh I'd posit most of the weridos attacking Obama call him a socialist, not a Nazi. Come on redy, get your nutjob slurs correct!

http://obamaisliterallyhitler.tumblr.com/

I laughed when I read that Frazz. Just gotta say though, not all liberals are flakey hippies with no balls. Some of us just want a functional government too, it's just a different angle of approach. The 'ballsy' liberal is willing to get in a protest against something they think is wrong whether or not it will accomplish anything, because just the existance of the protest may sway other people into realizations about either capitalism or homelessness or immigration or police brutality, etc., pick your target. The 'balls' liberal lives according to the law for the most part, but understands that sometimes it is just plain unfair to a certain group of people (I'm an alien and I'm pretty sure I could stop in Flagstaff or Phoenix and not have my paperwork questioned, for instance). Everyone wants to be able to pay their way through life. Restrictions on a right to do something productive with yourself in the rigid system that likes to monitor the particulars (manned by people who ironically make it hard for others to earn a living, for a living) will only end up with more crime, thus letting the 'system' people say "I told you so" when crime rates grow up because work became illegal... it must be THOSE people! well no duh sherlock! of course it's THOSE people... THOSE people who weren't allow a chance to work for an honest living have to resort to some kind of lawlessness. hmm.

So you're still equating balls with violence?

Again I say do you really want to go down this road?

Frankly if you're homeless why are you still allowed in this country?

I am not homeless. I do quite well for myself. However I do remember the unfair treatment of those times. Balls does not equal violence. A protest need not be violent to get its point accross. Sometimes it happens but hey that's why they have tasers and nightsticks. Just in case they have to get violent.

Frazzled wrote:So you're still equating balls with violence?

Again I say do you really want to go down this road?

Frankly if you're homeless why are you still allowed in this country?

Hey, everyone! Frazz thinks homeless people should be denied American citizenship!

Guitardian wrote:I am not homeless. I do quite well for myself. However I do remember the unfair treatment of those times. Balls does not equal violence. A protest need not be violent to get its point accross. Sometimes it happens but hey that's why they have tasers and nightsticks. Just in case they have to get violent.

We're agreed then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mortified Penguin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So you're still equating balls with violence?

Again I say do you really want to go down this road?

Frankly if you're homeless why are you still allowed in this country?

Hey, everyone! Frazz thinks homeless people should be denied American citizenship!

He's not an American citizen now.

The joke I made just flew right over you, didn't it?

It wasn't a joke. It was an attack and I called you on your lack of facts. You're really going to have to work harder here. I'm the Barney Fife of targets. If you can't attack me properly how are you going to attack a more difficult opponent? Come Morty I'm just trying to help you get to the next level.

In general Internet etiquette, a laughing smiley usually indicates humour. Furthermore, in just about every previous post I have made I will at least have an argument. The fact that the post was a childish "Hurr, lookit" should indicate that it was a cheap attempt at a joke. Should I have made it, considering I didn't have all the facts and that it was tangentally related to the thread at best? In retrospect, no, it was dumb. That doesn't necessarily make it an attack however; attack implies malice, and internet arguments (as Shuma, Fate and dogma, alias the three stooges, have shown) are glorified shouting matches at best.