20 October, 2007

ACLU Sues N.M. Sheriff’s Department

Posted by Socrates in ACLU, federal power, Fourteenth Amendment, Socrates at 9:56 pm | Permanent Link

Lawsuit claims violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Trivia: the Fourteenth Amendment was apparently not ratified properly) [1][2]:

[Article].

[1] more about the Fourteenth Amendment, which America’s civil rights laws are based on: [Here] and [Here]

[2] more about the ACLU: (scroll almost 3/4 down the page): [Here]


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 08/23/15 They Still Don’t Know the History of the 14th Amendment 75% similar
  3. 02/02/20 On Super Bowl Weekend: Women and Equality in the Locker Room 69% similar
  4. 03/18/08 ACLU Sues Palm Beach County School District 64% similar
  5. 03/02/09 South Dakota: ACLU Investigates Sioux Falls Fire Department 63% similar
  6. 10/01/16 Snivel Rights: Fake Rights Since 1964 59% similar
  7. 9 Responses to “ACLU Sues N.M. Sheriff’s Department”

    1. weiber mann Says:

      I must admit that, I have learned to view the world differently when reading articles such as this one. Being trustworthy to the leaders of this nation by working, paying taxes and raising a family has now resulted in myself feeling so guillible.

      But, I am not alone. The unresponsive Congress has woke up people like myself and we are not guillible anymore.

      This nation is finally waking up.

    2. -jc Says:

      The illegal immigrant problem is like 9-11: It is a crisis that is meant to create such exasperation that rank & file Americans accept all manner of police state tactics. Warrant-less searches absent hot pursuit are one thing no one should tolerate.

      If the federal government were doing its job, and I can’t imagine it ever happening unless Ron Paul managed to get elected and then was very careful not to get assassinated, there would not be the level of frustration that tolerates so much of this kind of thing from police.

      I can tell you with certainty that, if I were a Mexican-American citizen, I would not be working to create more hostility toward illegal aliens by promoting them. Mexicans, like Blacks, need to wake up that they are simply tools of the usual suspects and the left-liberal New World Order crowd.

    3. Walter Mitty Says:

      Just another day in the “kwa”…
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_po/louisiana_governor

    4. sgruber Says:

      Civil rights are for Whites. Period. Fuck Mexicans. If they want a fair shake, let them stay in their own lands (=whatever they can defend) and create it there. The reason Mexican-American citizens promote illegals is because they are all RACIAL BROTHERS. Blood is thicker than water. When the rubber hits the road, shitskins are for shitskins, never for a White man piece of paper.

      There is a solution to the jewish problem.

    5. aa Says:

      in defeat under northern military ocupation, the incorrigible South votes against the the 14th amendment:

      Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on Oct. 27, 1866. [Cite 11]Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on Nov. 9, 1866. [Cite 12]Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 6, 1866. [Cite 13]Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 7, 1866. [Cite 14]North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 14, 1866. [Cite 15]Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 17, 1866. [Cite 16]South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 20, 1866. [Cite 17]Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 8, 1867. [Cite 18]Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 9, 1867. [Cite 19]Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 6, 1867. [Cite 20]Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 7, 1867. [Cite 21]Maryland rejected the l4th amendment on Mar. 23, 1867. [Cite 22]Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 31, 1867. [Cite 23]Ohio rejected the 14th amendment on Jan. 16, 1868. [Cite 24]New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on Mar. 24, 1868. [Cite 25]

    6. yea Says:

      Oh no — an Indian was elected governor of Louisiana! can’t you hear the South rolling over in its grave!

    7. Coup d'Etat Says:

      Here we go again! ACLU — full of incompetent jewish lawyers who think that not following the Constitution or only part of it will protect the illegals from having federal laws enforced. Yes, jews are notorious for twisting things around which they try to make it look legal or sensible in their upside down, twisted world. In reality, the jews need to be committed to a sanitarium and given a lobotomy.

      Where does it say in the Constitution that illegals are protected by the Constitution? Where does it say in the federal laws and/or state laws that illegals have rights? They don’t. And, being human does excuse the fact that the illegals are not criminals. When an illegal crosses the border, it is automatically a criminal – no ifs, ands, or buts about it and laws to treat criminals, especially non-citizens does not grant the same equal protection under the laws as a citizen of the United States.

      Read this you fucking jews and learn! If you can’t grasp this or refuse to abide by our White laws, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY OR DIE!

      Why in the HELL are we allowing these stupid, corrupt, lowlife jews practicing law or allowing them to attend law school in our country? BAN THE BASTARDS!

    8. Vaultner Says:

      “Sheriff’s deputies “do not have the authority or the training to investigate or arrest people because they suspect them of being undocumented.”
      Hence the idea of drivers licenses for illegals. If you don’t have an I.D. you could be an illegal. Hell I was born here, my parents were born here & I’m not allowed to walk around with out I.D. it’s the law. They can’t just make up papers for anyone they want to either.
      And yes Sheriffs do have the training & authority to check someones Identity. These asshole lawyers have got to stop making shit up as they go along.
      But in my opinion that’s what this case is about getting drivers licenses for illegals.

    9. Unknown Scholar Says:

      Article. V.
      >
      >The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
      propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures
      of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
      which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
      Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
      States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode
      of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which
      may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
      Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
      AND that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
      in the Senate.
      >
      >The 17th Amendment certainly deprived some States of their sufferage in the
      Senate. Gee, I wonder what that means for the Amendments? I don`t know, but it
      sure looks serious, doesn`t it? Perhaps we would be wise to repeal the 17th Amendment!
      According to the 10th Amendment , the States are distinct from the People. This
      is talking about the State Governments.

      I would like to show you a few things in the Constitution that I am sure
      you will find to be very interesting.

      Article 1. Section 9.3} No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall
      be passed.

      I hate to have to break this to you, but the 14th Amendment fails these
      basic tests of Constitutionality. That amendment is a bill of attainder
      and it was passed ex post facto. I will not even mention the coercion
      and illegal expulsion from Congress of our Representatives and Senators
      for our failure to ratify this Amendment. The history of this amendment
      is a three ring circus of lies and murder.

      Article 3. Section 3.2} The Congress shall have power to declare the
      punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work
      corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person
      attained.

      This is really great. Remember that Article 1.Section 9.3} declared
      that Congress may not pass Bills of Attainder or ex post facto laws. Now
      we see an exception or a mistake.
      Attainders of treason are permitted with some very serious restrictions
      on them to protect the decendants of the traitors. That is us, by the
      way. The language of the Section seems to me to imply that ex post
      facto is okay here because otherwise the attainder could not work
      forfiture. No person would vote beforehand to give up his property for
      his upcoming treason unless he is insane, therefore we can safely say
      that the 13th Amendment is okay. The entire problem is the 14th Amendment.
      The value of the slaves concerns us here. That value is the forfiture
      that is Constitutionally bound to be returned to the Southern people as
      we shall not suffer Corruption of Blood or lose our property except
      during the lifetimes of the Confederate Politicians and Soldiers. They
      are now all dead. Also, the theory known as the Incorporation Doctrine
      is defunct. The application of the Incorporation Doctrine is Corruption
      of Blood and is Unconstitutional. We, the Southerners living now, are
      not and have never been Traitors to the United States. We are thereby
      under the jurisdiction of the original Constitution or else Corruption
      of Blood is being allowed to function as the Supreme Law of the Land
      rather than the Constitution of the United States. This cannot continue.