Obama regime targeting "America's Sheriff"

I don't know where you live but I will bring nothing to your nation. But I want your benefits. Please where do you live. I have $2.000 American to start.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

I don't know where you live but I will bring nothing to your nation. But I want your benefits. Please where do you live. I have $2.000 American to start.

i guess it was too hard to look under location, right below my avatar ?

So this is the idiot who was in trouble with the federal govt. long before Obama got into office.
He is in trouble apparently for abusing his authority delegated to him by ICE and breaking the rules that are backed by the constitution of those United States si in as suc he was exposing not only the county and the state but also the country to severe financial liabilities.
But hey he got a reality TV deal so he must be OK with the muppets on the idiot box

Enforcing the law is now against the law. Our government is officially the enemy.

[CCIP]

Yes, but when in enforcing law you also exceed the authority given to you by law and violate constitutional rights and ideals (and I dare say some of what I'd read about Arpaio's jail stands fundamentally against the bit on 'cruel and unusual punishments'), what does that make you?

Frankly I'm not all that against Arpaio's decisive enforcement, but I think giving him the card of 'America's sheriff' is incredibly dangerous. He needs, NEEDS to be absolutely checked and, when needed, criticized by those watching over him. I agree that he's achieved some important results, but he has always tread a very dangerous line between these results and human rights violations. You can't be America's anything if you step over human rights, simple as that.

[gimpy117]

america's sheriff? please.

[yubba]

Where in the Constitution that the liberals are using as a floor mat ,that illegal immigrants have rights.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by yubba

Where in the Constitution that the liberals are using as a floor mat ,that illegal immigrants have rights.

I thought human rights were, by definition, afforded to all humans. Of course the same constitution originally used the same logic to look the other way on slavery.

Look, there's no question that the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. But you can't do it at the risk of dividing America between what boils down to humans versus not-humans (by virtue of not having rights to fair treatment). People like Arpaio walk a fine line and need to be kept in close check. Ignoring some political controversy surrounding him, you have to be very careful about his approach to meting out justice. One of the underlying ideals of American legal culture is due process and innocence-until-proven-guilty, and another is freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and he treads far too close a line on those.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by yubba

Where in the Constitution that the liberals are using as a floor mat ,that illegal immigrants have rights.

The Constitution is only one source of our legislation. We are a nation governed by a Constitution, laws, regulations, and precedents, not solely by a Constitution alone. Please read Plyer v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Yes, but when in enforcing law you also exceed the authority given to you by law and violate constitutional rights and ideals (and I dare say some of what I'd read about Arpaio's jail stands fundamentally against the bit on 'cruel and unusual punishments'), what does that make you?

Frankly I'm not all that against Arpaio's decisive enforcement, but I think giving him the card of 'America's sheriff' is incredibly dangerous. He needs, NEEDS to be absolutely checked and, when needed, criticized by those watching over him. I agree that he's achieved some important results, but he has always tread a very dangerous line between these results and human rights violations. You can't be America's anything if you step over human rights, simple as that.

Yes but has he ever crossed the line? I stated this before...if he was crossing the line of civil right he would have a lawsuit slapped on him by Al Sharpton and co faster than you can say lickity split.

[Aramike]

People like Arpaio walk a fine line and need to be kept in close check.

Now this is a statement I can agree with. And the "America's Sheriff" thing makes little sense to me, but it's certainly not an official title, so what do I care?

[CCIP]

Like I said, I don't have any hard evidence either way - well, more that I don't really trust everything that I'd read from either side in this. Some of the first-hand stuff about his jail policies that I'd read is pretty stomach-turning, but obviously someone actually IN there is both a bit biased and on the wrong side of the law...

I'm not saying he crossed the line, just that keeping a sharp critical eye on him (by law as by independent civil people) should be absolutely right. Giving him grand titles risks giving him too much super-legal credence.

[Platapus]

What makes you think he has not had lawsuits against him?

Maricopa County has paid more than $43 million in settlement claims during Arpaio's tenure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricop...ley_Tribune-66

I am still looking for a non-wiki citation...