Supreme Court issues split decision on Arizona immigration law

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It seems like they're looking at partially upholding and partially striking it, or at least everybody but Scalia is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As long as they get rid of the provision forcing people to carry immigration documents with them, I will be happy. That part of the law is ridiculous and makes immigrants targets of criminals who would like to steal their documents to sell it. And then later on it can be challenged for racial profiling, which will inevitably happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either extremely naive, or doesn't really care whether it happens.

So, you want Title 8, Section 1304, subsection (e) of the United States Code, to be struck down?  On what basis?

I'm pretty sure Sbane articulated his basis in his post, but I already new that you have the reading comprehension of a small child off his Ritalin, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As long as they get rid of the provision forcing people to carry immigration documents with them, I will be happy. That part of the law is ridiculous and makes immigrants targets of criminals who would like to steal their documents to sell it. And then later on it can be challenged for racial profiling, which will inevitably happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either extremely naive, or doesn't really care whether it happens.

So, you want Title 8, Section 1304, subsection (e) of the United States Code, to be struck down?  On what basis?

I'm pretty sure Sbane articulated his basis in his post, but I already knew that you have the reading comprehension of a small child off his Ritalin, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Nathan, while Sbane articulated why he thought it was a bad law, he gave no basis for why he wanted it to be found unconstitutional.  While it would have been nice if CARL had been a little less cryptic, 8 USC 1304 (e) is the provision of Federal law that requires resident aliens to carry their green card.  That said, depending on how SB 1070 2(B) is implemented it could effectively require U.S. citizens to carry an ID card with them at all times in order to minimize the harassment law enforcement could subject them to.  So CARL, make certain you carry your driver's license with you when you go jogging in case you get stopped by the cops while you get your exercise.

Does precedent support the sense that a law can be found unconstitutional on the basis of how it's implemented even if that implementation isn't in the law itself? I seem to recall that it does but I'm not sure of the exact case. If so the racial profiling issue might lead to a substantive due process argument against 8 USC 1304 (e).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

CARL, your response has nothing to do with Ernest's post. Did you mean to reply to Sbane, and if so, do you know what 'in effect' means?