Thread: BEWARE: AZ SB 1308 MAY NOT BE WHAT IT APPEARS

Originally Posted by stevetheroofer

Originally Posted by forest

And Steve, I hope, I hope, I hope! you are right!

"I am and if by slim chance I'm not don't worry I'll tell when to

"RUN! FOREST! RUN!"

Ok, this really made me laugh because actually the reason why my screen name is forest is due to that quote - it involves a story about approximately 200 geese and being chased by them . I ran so fast that my friend who was with me kept yelling wait up, wait for me! And when we got home she was dying laughing - think I was too much out of breath and traumatized by the whole thing . But after awhile I calmed down and laughed too. Of course, she could not let it go and since it was around the time of the Forest Gump movie, she relished in teasing me and started calling me forest. Well now, I can laugh at myself so I promptly changed my nickname to forest. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Now first lets talk about the "compact" what does that mean necassarily? Make an agreement with any other state? That can't be true as we already have compacts between states if thats the case. We actually have hundreds if not more. No the compact thats refered to is against a foreign government or against other states, that can be seen by the rest of the context. Any other way simply would state one state can't support another state at all w/o the federal government being involved. Hell, we could even consider what California tried to do against Arizona's SB 1070 law a violation of the US Constitution then by trying to enter into an agreement with other states and Mexico to sanction Arizona basically.

Next talk about the exemption even if such was looked at was out of context.

"unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Right there we have a dead ringer. Who can really argue that we aren't being actually invaded? We have the Feds say 12 million foreigner illegals in our country, other suggestions closer to 16-18 million. Yet we also have 15-20 million children of illegals gaining false citizenship.

We can easily argue were being actually invaded... or what do you call all those with no allegiance to the US? We can also even easier argue its an imminent danger in our minds to not admit a delay.

Furthermore we can also argue that the US Federal Government has the responsibility to protect all states from invasion. As they have failed to do so we can actually go much much further.

People need to realize the US Constitution was written very well. It gives massive power when one is fighting for the American People. Yet when they are against that power is cut massively. A 5 year old could argue and win this case as long as logic and law alone was used to deside the victor.

Originally Posted by forest

And that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

"Well that is a fine story, Miss Gump!"

"So all this state compact stuff, can't all the states filing illegal immigration bills ban together?" Sue one, sue us all? And wouldn't that give more power to the states and less to the Feds? I for one sure am glad you guys are workin' this side of the fence! Cause we'd be screwed if you were workin' the "South Side!" Hell my jobs easy, I just have to make sure your computers don't get wet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIqxnYZZNB8