If you have a minute Mr Holder, please read the law
By laglen
@laglen (19759)
United States
May 14, 2010 9:13am CST
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas-immigration-law-despite-slamming/
Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law -- which is only 10 pages long.
"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas whether Holder has read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
"I'll give you my copy of it if you would like," Poe responded.
Holder told reporters last month that he fears the new law is subject to abuse and that the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are in the midst of conducting a review.
The Arizona law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
The law has sparked protests across the country, including a City Council-approved boycott of Arizona businesses by Los Angeles.But proponents deny that the law encourages racial profiling, with some saying the local controversy is a symptom of a broken federal immigration system.
However, varying public opinion polls show 60-70 percent of Americans support the law.
Holder said last month that a number of options are under consideration, including the possibility of a court challenge.
On Thursday, Holder said he plans to read the law before reaching a decision on whether he thinks it's constitutional.
When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."
On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling.
Holder said he understands the frustration behind the Arizona law, but he warned during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that "we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done."
Voicing concern over a law you havent read. Sounds like a pretty popular problem we are having these days. I have read it, it didnt take too long. He even went in front of Congress to discuss, and still didnt take the time to read it.
here is a video clip
very interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rH1FEcbi4A
2 responses
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
14 May 10
Because the Governor and others have not finished writing the law. The Governor has made several changes to the language as late as yesterday. I believe that what everyone is reading is the adridged edition that came out of congress and it has not been finalized.
He is speculating like the rest of us that this violates the 4th and 14th amendmant no atter how they correct the language.
In the past, when the Supreme Court was functunal, they have never upheld a law that was inacted by the majority rule to control or supress a minority. That could easily change with this court.
Our fore fathers wrote volumes on this very issue and then made blacks and other minority's three fifths of a person. Guess their intention was well ment.
1 person likes this
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
15 May 10
It clearly won't stand on the 4th or the 14th amendmants. Those are the basis for the lawsuits that are already being prepared by the ACLU.
The dysfunctunal court? The same one that just overturned 25 years of campaign finance law to recognize corporations and political action committee's to have all the same rights and privilages of and as an individual. How or what were they smoking, how they came up with any concept that our fore fathers intended that a business or group should be afforded individual rights after they wrote a document/s that was soley intended to protect individuals and impower the citizenry of our nation.
240 years of the individual rights being the primary concern and now Haliburton can purchase who ever they want for government office. If that is not dysfunctional then we need a new term to apply to that activist insanity.
4th and 14th;
Due process, equal protection, privileges of immunities, probable cause alone is a no starter.
Regardless of how they re-write it if it affect one part of the community deffirently then another part of the community because of their looks how can it be defended?
1 person likes this
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
15 May 10
"...a law that was inacted by the majority rule to control or supress a minority". TTCCWW, have you read the law? Show me the part of this law that supports your statement...and I might buy it. Also, how is this court not functional? Give me some examples, and again, I might buy it.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
14 May 10
Before I made an as* of myself on national tv or in front of Congress, I think I would have read the law, studied the law, asked questions about the law, knew the law inside and out before opening my mouth. I'm beginning to like Red Poe more and more...
