Skip to comments.Federal judge blocks Arizona's day laborer restrictions
Posted on 02/29/2012 10:00:45 PM PST by ColdOne
A federal judge blocked police in Arizona from enforcing a section of the state's 2010 immigration enforcement law that prohibited people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day labor services on streets.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that groups seeking to overturn the law will likely prevail in their claim that the day labor rules violate the First Amendment.
The ban was among a handful of provisions in the law that were allowed to take effect after a July 2010 decision by Bolton halted enforcement of other, more controversial elements of the law. The previously blocked portions include a requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, question people's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Gov. Jan Brewer's appeal of Bolton's decision to put the most contentious elements of the law on hold. Another appeals court has already upheld Bolton's ruling.
Three of the seven challenges to the Arizona law remain alive. No trial date has yet been scheduled in the three cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Blocking traffic is “speaking”? Mind you they aren’t talking about distracting drivers and indirectly leading to traffic jams with signs. They’re talking about blocking traffic.
This is Occupunk-think. Someone needs to impeach that judge like yesterday.
The feds know full well we will not do anything.
We tried almost 2 decades ago here in CA with prop 187.
My suggestion is teach your kids Spanish.
No one is willing to do what neccy to stop this.
Foreign invaders have a “right” to block traffic??
just enough espanol to say speak the eff in english or get outta my face.
HUH???? Almost every city in northern California has ordinances of the same nature. Since when is trying to brow beat someone into hiring you ‘free speech’?
A federal judge blocked police in Arizona from enforcing a section of the state’s 2010 immigration enforcement law that prohibited people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day labor services on streets.
Your Right to Protest:
You have a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful protest in traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks or public parks.
However, the government can impose time, place and manner restrictions on speech; for example, the government may
require permits for large protests or prohibit unreasonably loud demonstrations that disturb others.
These restrictions are generally permissible as long as they are reasonable and not based on content.
The government cannot impose permit restrictions simply because it does not like the message of a certain speaker or group.If, for example, you are planning a parade that involves closing down streets, a permit is almost always required. But a small march that stays on public sidewalks and obeys all traffic signals often does not require a permit.
Make sure to inquire about city or county ordinances that regulate First Amendment activities. In the City of Phoenix, permits may be obtained from the city manager (City Manager Office, Phoenix City Hall, 200 W. Washington St 12th Floor, AZ 85003).
However, policies vary by city, so be sure to check your local regulations in advance. Generally, you have the right to distribute literature, hold signs, and collect petition signatures while on sidewalks or in front of government buildings as long as you are not disrupting other people or government proceedings, forcing passersby to accept leaflets or causing traffic problems.
If one studies the evolution of case law, accretion by accretion, one can see how the Supreme Court and inferior courts have managed to literally re-interpret clause after clause of the Constitution to render its meaning precisely the opposite of its meaning when it was written. Each case moves the compass needle but a few degrees away from true North but at the end of the day the needle points directly South.
So when we read that it is unconstitutional to maintain the free flow of traffic from people who would willfully block it, because blocking it has now come to mean free speech, our reaction is one of common sense because we have not been brainwashed by the drip, drip of court decisions.
Clarence Thomas comes the closest to emancipating himself from the drips.
When we talk about “the law” we might mean two different things. One would be the body of all written statutes, culminating with the federal and state constitutions. The other would be the body of documented court customs as to how such written law is applied. It’s the second kind of “law” — case law — that by far can more greatly wreak havoc on the moral compass, and it’s encouraged by attorneys who feed garbage to courts until they get enough garbage blessed against the former common assumptions to make a difference. Even the proverbial blind pig gets an acorn now and then, and an occasional addition to case law is to the good more than the bad. But usually things get added because they are new not because they better illuminate the true intent.
Still, I’d like to know even what “case law” got blocking traffic transmogrified into a kind of speaking. I could see a complaint that the law doesn’t ban everyone equally from blocking traffic but only focuses upon a controversial group of people. But that’s not how the court seems to have reasoned. If it can be called reasoning.