Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is an honorable man, from KGUN9 news:
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik tells KGUN9 News that SB 1070, Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration, is a “racist law,” and says he has no intention of complying with it. In doing so, Dupnik becomes the first major local law enforcement official to officially rebel against the bill since Governor Jan Brewer signed it into law on Friday.
Dupnik told KGUN9’s Steve Nunez that the law is “disgusting” and “unnecessary.” Dupnik said his deputies plan to keep on doing what they’ve always done. He said when illegal immigrants wind up in his custody, his deputies will detain them for federal agents, but will not take them to the county jail.
Dupnik said he realizes that, under the terms of SB 1070, he could get sued for failing to comply with the law. But he indicated that’s a risk he’s willing to take. Dupnik insisted that federal law supersedes state law.
In an e-mail exchange with KGUN9 News Tuesday afternoon, SB 1070’s sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce sharply criticized Dupnik’s position. Pearce wrote, “Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. I guess the 9 Sheriffs who support this bill are racist.”
Tags: KPUN9News, Racist law, Russel Pearce, SB1070
El Gringo Gigante 
April 28, 2010 at 3:16 pm |
Dupnik is inserting his political views into his responsibilities as a law enforcer for the county. If he can not uphold his duties, then he should be relieved of them. He can interpret the law and enforce it based on his interpretation, but his political views of it are overstepping of his job description.
Dupnik is jumping the gun with his claim of: federal law supersedes state law, it may be up to a court to decide, but if that court sides against Dupnik philosophy, is he going to then enforce the law, o will he quit?
April 28, 2010 at 5:52 pm |
Political, Liquid? Maybe partly. I know you are a law-and-order guy, follow the law regardless, but there is a time when it should be crossed.
If Dupnik believes it is a racist law, he is quite similar to a sheriff, before the civil rights era, who refused to enforce mandatory segregation laws.
This law will result in profiling on account of etnnicity(not race, solely, but it is a big factor).
In times of difficulty, no matter the daunting challenge, a civilized nation cannot trample on the rights of citizens and LPR’s.
The pre-emption argument is premature only insofar as a Court has not officially stamped it out of existence. Many constitutional scholars have already come out and said that this law is facially unconstitutional. If Dupnik has good faith in this belief, it is preferable for the sake of moral and ethical concerns to civilly disobey(the penalty for not complying with SB1070 is civil, not criminal).
April 28, 2010 at 6:32 pm
If Dupnik believes it is a racist law, he is quite similar to a sheriff, before the civil rights era, who refused to enforce mandatory segregation laws.
He will then probably be voted out of his position when his term comes up.
This law will result in profiling on account of etnnicity (sic)(not race, solely, but it is a big factor).
Mere allegation on your part. The officers must still follow all laws in regards to “legal contact” of persons. This has already been interpreted and shown through the courts as to what constitutes “legal contact”.
In times of difficulty, no matter the daunting challenge, a civilized nation cannot trample on the rights of citizens and LPR’s.
What “rights” are being trampled on the citizens and LPR/GC holders based on this law?
The pre-emption argument is premature only insofar as a Court has not officially stamped it out of existence. Many constitutional scholars have already come out and said that this law is facially unconstitutional. If Dupnik has good faith in this belief, it is preferable for the sake of moral and ethical concerns to civilly disobey(the penalty for not complying with SB1070 is civil, not criminal).
More assumptions that the law will be found to be unconstitutional. There are just as many Constitutional Scholars that say the law does nothing more than follow existing Federal Law. Now, there may be portions of this bill that the courts may say can not be enforced, but the likeliness that this entire bill will be found as unconstitutional is a guess at best. As for Dupnik and his disobedience, I never said it was a criminal act, I merely questioned his ideology and asked if the bill is found to be fine if he will quit.
April 28, 2010 at 4:47 pm |
His responsibility as a sheriff is to uphold the law as it is interpreted by the courts. His responsibility as a citizen is to stand for justice as it is laid out in the constitution. This law has forced Dupnik into a moral conflict of the same ilk as those that inspired this country and I believe he has made the right choice. Consider it civil disobedience.
April 28, 2010 at 5:55 pm |
Right on. Could an analogy be made to a military example, where a commanding officer orders a soldier to kill an innocent? Should he follow the order, or risk being punished by the commanding officer? This is no different.
Putnik is saying, basically, he will not be like so many people are when they are subsequently criticized for committing a bad act: “I was just doing my job”.
April 28, 2010 at 8:26 pm |
His responsibility as a citizen is to stand for justice as it is laid out in the constitution.
Exactly what justice is laid out in the Constitution? Surely your not claiming the 4th Amendment ( http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm ) or the 14th Amendment (as posted http://bryanjohnsonblog.com/2010/04/28/rep-duncan-hunter-supports-deportation-of-american-citizens/#respond – by me). The AZ law will pass muster, just as Prop 187 did in CA. Before you get all “No it didn’t”, you better research 187, only the benefits that were denied to those here in violation of immigration law and the fact that CA wanted Doctors, Nurses, and Social Workers to turn in violators were deemed to be unconstitutional, the police enforcement part of the bill was not found to be in violation “civil rights” and was allowed to remain.
Now, Dupnik’s responsibility to stand for what he believes to be “Social Justice” is his “Ideology”, it is not laid out in the Constitution. His “civil disobedience” may get him fired during his next re-election.
His responsibility as a sheriff is to uphold the law as it is interpreted by the courts.
Agreed!
May 1, 2010 at 2:19 pm
As a citizen, not as a sheriff, he is responsible for upholding the constitution according to his own interpretation, not according to the courts interpretation. I thought I was clear on this being that I had made reference to the revolution, and there clearly was no legal precedent in british law which condoned those events. I am simply saying that at a certain point a responsible person/citizen will toss out authoritarian obedience and go against their institutional obligations in order that they might be able to live with themselves (whether or not they get reelected).
Dupnik’s stance represents his own interpretation of the constitution and the situation at hand. He believes that the law in action will become abusive and lead to unreasonable searches. This should not be hard to believe; if you give an officer an ulterior motive for searching someone he/she could find something else to charge a person with (real or imaginary) at the snap of your fingers. Dupnik’s experience in the field has shown him this. We will soon see if he is right.
You can say that his stance represents his own individual ideology, and to an extent it does, but he is clearly concerning himself with upholding constitutional rights whether you agree with his interpretation or not.
May 1, 2010 at 3:28 pm
As a citizen, not as a sheriff, he is responsible for upholding the constitution according to his own interpretation, not according to the courts interpretation.
You have that backwards. As a Sheriff he is responsible for upholding the Constitution as defined by the Courts, as a Citizen he has the freedom to express his ideology.
I am simply saying that at a certain point a responsible person/citizen will toss out authoritarian obedience and go against their institutional obligations in order that they might be able to live with themselves
A responsible person? (judgmental are you?) Nothing in SB1070 is authoritarian. If Dupnik chooses to go against his “institutional obligations”, he does so base on his Social Ideology.
He believes that the law in action will become abusive and lead to unreasonable searches.
Then as a Sheriff it is his responsibility to make sure that he himself and those under him are not abusive or use unreasonable searches. He is only responsible for himself and those under him. To base the outcome of the law on what “may” happen, is pre-emptive at best, to deny the law on this basis without any proof whatsoever, is but politics, either way, Dupnik must either enforce the law as written when/if implemented, or he must quit his job for being unable to fulfill his duties to Society.
You can say that his stance represents his own individual ideology, and to an extent it does, but he is clearly concerning himself with upholding constitutional rights whether you agree with his interpretation or not.
The “Plausible Distinction” claim.
May 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Author’s Note
The reliability of constitution.org’s interpretation of the U.S. constitution is highly questionable because a principal contributor, Jon Roland, is highly partisan and, in fact, is not an attorney or a judge. In effect, it appears to the author that Jon Roland’s interpretation of the constitution is to seek what he believes is a better result. His opinion on Immigration is telling, especially in light of this entry being about immigration. Here are quotes from him on it:
Decrease the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country.
Illegal immigrants should have to return to their countries of origin before being considered for citizenship.
Support merit-based visas over family-based visas.
Roland adds, “Secure border from illegal entry.
END OF AUTHOR’S NOTE
Here’s a good link to read to understand the US Constitution.
http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
As you note, based on the “Social Contract” as outlined in the Constitution, (3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials.[17]
[17] The exercise of general police powers is both a right of citizens, and a duty of able-bodied ones. All citizens are policemen, although ordinary citizens may be outranked by professional police officers when such officers are present in a law enforcement situation.
Citizens arrest comes to mind.
May 1, 2010 at 9:32 pm
So, because you fail to actually find anything wrong with the link, you attempt to, in someway, discredit it. Typical. How about you then provide a link to the interpretation of the US Constitution you wish to use so it can be discussed.
You also refer to his immigration opinion?? You are really reaching aren’t you? Again, the role of the Socialist Democrat/Progressive is to attack and discredit the others points to in some way make themselves more credible, sorry it isn’t working out for you.
May 2, 2010 at 4:04 pm
“Typical…Again, the role of the Socialist Democrat/Progressive is to attack and discredit the others points to in some way make themselves more credible, sorry it isn’t working out for you.”
I am not a Socialist Democrat/progressive. I did not put that warning up there to discredit your argument substantively, just to put people on notice.
Undoubtedly, Roland is a controversial figure and is in no way close to an objective source on the constitution. Of course, no one can be completely objective, but Roland falls far off course.
If you want a comprehensive, look-at-both-sides explanation of the Constitution and its interpretation, I suggest Erwin Chemerinsky’s hornbook.
May 1, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Jon Roland, is highly partisan and, in fact, is not an attorney or a judge.
So only Judges and lawyers can interpret the Constitution? I guess professors and scholars are just chumps, along with politicians and soldiers, to include the average citizen and immigrant.
Whats so wrong with Rolands immigration position?
May 2, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Clearly, not only judges and attorneys can interpret the constitution. But, in general, judges and attorneys(depending on levels of competence) are specially trained in studying the law, which includes the constitution. And its not to say that Roland cannot do what he has done, nor that you cannot look to his interpretation for arguments. However, again, I think it is important, for the sake of good-faith arguments and credibility, that extreme bias’ be disclosed.
May 2, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Chemerinsky?? Your kidding right? He’s a Collective Rights believer. He believes that “no rights are absolute”, and is a big Government advocate. “The regulation (DC Gun control law) should be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose.” He attempts to usurp the 2nd Amendment with the “General Welfare Clause” granting unlimited power to the Federal Government.
If you are going to label Roland as biased, you should also make your Authors Note about the far-left ideology of Chemerinsky.
May 2, 2010 at 5:47 pm
As for Roland, you didn’t argue against his interpretation, you flat out criticized him based on his immigration stance.
I think it is important, for the sake of good-faith arguments and credibility, that extreme bias’ be disclosed.
Live by your words then.
May 2, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Chemerinsky has his constitutional philosophy/ideology, yet he is well-respected in the field of constitutional law, by critics and proponents.
Roland, on the other hand, has no background in the field of constitutional law(computer scientist, or something), and what he has written has gone largely ignored by just about everyone except for people wanting to bring back the militias. There’s the clarification, it’s not just his stance on immigration; its his utter lack of credibility. Also, the hornbook that chemerinsky did not purport to promote one interpretation of the constitution; it brought out all of the ones, as it has been interpreted by SCOTUS.
Was there an inherent bias? Perhaps, but in no way will I accept your assertion that Chemerinsky–because he is for BIG GOVERNMENT–warrants a disclosure of being highly partisan such as Roland does.
May 2, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I linked to an interpretation of the Constitution, not to the man who is supposed to have written it. Still you have no argument based on what the link stated.
n no way will I accept your assertion that Chemerinsky–because he is for BIG GOVERNMENT–warrants a disclosure of being highly partisan such as Roland does.
And that’s only because you believe as he does, you fail to show objectivity and only limit your comment to bias.
May 1, 2010 at 12:05 pm |
When Shakira stated “that I am pretty much undocumented” is absolutely ridiculous. She came to our country with documents. When entering into the United States legitimately you must show your passport, which Shakira certainly did. By challenging Arpaio to come and get her because she left her passport at her 5 star hotel clearly indicates Shakira does not understand the Arizona Senate Bill 1070. By Shakria not carrying her passport or identification does not mean she will be arrested. One must engage in illegal activity to be arrested and asked for identification, which most likely Shakira will not be engaging in illegal activity. For someone to rally other individuals without fully understanding the SB 1070 is irresponsible. People (including Shakira) need to take the time to fully understand the law before grand standing to an audience who expects her to be informed. Shakira should respect the United State’s freedom of speech and should be fully educated on the law before leading an emotional charged crowd. This law is not new, it is enforcing what is already in place by the Federal Government. It is a Federal crime to be an illegal alien thus the term “illegal alien.” Crime has become an increasing problem in Arizona. The law is designed to punish criminals for being criminals not for being illegal immigrants. Which all members of our community should embrace. If the Federal Government would take illegal immigration seriously there could be alternatives for this law. But the Federal Government ignored Arizona’s immigration problem and decided they could not rely on the Federal Government for help. Arizona’s actions are directed against the members of the immigrant community that are criminals. Anyone, citizen or non-citizen, should agree that the increased violence around our boarders needs to be addressed. Immigrants and citizens need to work together to reduce crime. Shame on you Shakria for further inflaming a passionate subject that should be addressed rationally. Shame on you everyone else for not educating yourself on the SB 1070. For those of you that want to be educated you can read the full law here
May 1, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
Liquid,
The “constitution society” states:
“If we define “constitutionalism” as a commitment to strict enforcement of a written constitution of government as it was originally understood by its framers and ratifiers, then its opposite is the doctrine and practice of “legal realism”, which holds that the “law” is whatever judges do or can be expected to do, whose main tenet is the doctrine of stare decisis as presently practiced, and which is fundamentally in conflict with adherence to a written constitution.”
It would appear that this website is only good to go to if you want a “particular” understanding of the constitution, as interpreted by Jon Roland, a highly politically partisan individual. If you are going to publish sources on understanding the constitution, please disclose the extreme bias behind it. Otherwise, you are unfairly deceiving my readers.
May 1, 2010 at 10:15 pm |
So then, do you believe the Constitution is a living document? Are you a pragmatist? So you agree with stare decisis being the correct way to go? (Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).)
What “extreme bias” is behind the understanding of the US Constitution?
May 2, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Extreme bias is when an individual interprets the constitution for an already-established political belief. I think Roland qualifies for that. That is why I mentioned his immigration stance; it shows a preconceived intent to interpret the constitution to obtain a political/ideological goal.
May 2, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Extreme bias is when an individual interprets the constitution for an already-established political belief.
And you don’t think Chemerinsky qualifies for this?
it shows a preconceived intent to interpret the constitution to obtain a political/ideological goal.
Exactly what Chemerinsky does!! BIG GOVERNMENT!!
May 2, 2010 at 6:00 pm
I would not characterize Chemerinsky as a far-left individual. To the left, perhaps, but not the the far-left Either way, read a respected scholar(which he is) instead of an obscure individual who writes his own wikipedia articles.
May 2, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Chemerinsky is a far-left Progressive. He is a strong supporter of the New Deal and the Second Bill of Rights.
read a respected scholar(which he is) instead of an obscure individual who writes his own wikipedia articles.
Roland is a politician, no different than any politician in any Congress, State or Federal. Roland is a Libertarian, myself being a Classic Liberal, his ideology isn’t that much different than mine. Hence your reference to Chemernsky and you being a Social Democrat or Progressive.
May 2, 2010 at 6:18 pm
“National Lawyers Guild Student Vice President Teague Briscoe, who said, “Chermerinsky on Constitutional Law saved my life in law school and I loved him doing the Professional Responsibility lectures but, most of all, I really dug that he was a progressive law prof who defends an unpopular client.””
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/erwin-chemerinsky-and-the_b_64568.html
May 1, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
Is that how you got the Un Convention bologna?
May 2, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
UN Bologna?, again referring to my topic on my blog, the UN Charter is a non-binding resolution, yet the US does attempt to use it when the matters arise. So, yes, due to “my” interpretation of the US Constitution,, based on the preamble, “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, limits the Liberty granted to only those deemed as Citizens or Nationals of the USA. Since once an immigrant violator is found to be here in violation of immigration law, his “rights” are then granted by “Civil Law” and the UN Charter is used, Paul Hellyer.
May 2, 2010 at 6:40 pm
It’s interesting that when you first mentioned the, yes, UN bologna, that you did not specify that that was based on your personal interpretation of the constitution. On this blog, I try to writ within reality
And it’s not just from your blog, the UN convention, you tried to convince me about that on my blog as well.
If everyone and their mother wanted to
May 2, 2010 at 6:51 pm
based on your personal interpretation of the constitution.
The interpretation, “my”, is based on the Federalist Papers and the Constitution itself. The “my” part is simply because of your belief in Chemerinsky and his Progressive ideology, his Collective/Group Rights vs Rolands Individual Rights for which I agree with.
You are still lacking in any concrete argument of what Roland has on the link I posted.
May 2, 2010 at 7:02 pm
I could address it, but don’t have the desire or time. I didn’t even know chemerinsky leaned towards a progressive ideology before you said it, so you are jumping to conclusions.
And you are equivocating; the ridiculousness of the “UN” argument is not based on my personal interpretation at all; it’s based SCOTUS’ interpretation of the constitution. Please do not authoritatively declare that I subscribe to an “ideology”, when you lack sufficient grounds. Insert “may”, or something to that effect. I’ve never weighed in on the “collective” vs. “individual” rights debate, so it is indeed presumptuous of you state what I believe in just because you believe in something.
In fact, I make a conscious effort not to subscribe to any sort of “ideology”, be what it may. So you are wrong.
May 2, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I didn’t even know chemerinsky leaned towards a progressive ideology before you said it
As Id didn’t look into the background of Roland or Constitution.org, until you demonized him vs finding fault in the link.
Again, my presumptions are based on your statements and those you use as reference.
May 2, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
You “may” claim to not subscribe to an ideology.
May 2, 2010 at 7:17 pm |
Link to progressive ideology in everything? That’s a straight up lie as well as impossible to prove unless “progressive ideology” is a strict definition. Please, do find within the following article any “link” to progressive ideology: http://bryanjohnsonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-terror-trial-lunacy/
Please, as well, direct me as to how I should modify your lie, or I will simply delete it.
May 2, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Nothing in that link denies that Terrorists held by our military should not be entitled to “due process” (Progressive ideology), you only argue that NY is a bad place to hold a trial. The terrorists should be limited to a military tribunal as they were captured during war in a war zone.
Seems you already deleted “most” of my comment.
May 2, 2010 at 7:39 pm
By omission, you impute that I have a certain opinion on whether Guantanomo detainees should or should not get a certain level of due process. That’s quite an interesting tactic you have there. I deleted the second half of the comment because it is simply not true, as is evidenced by your imputation of my ideology based on an omission.
May 2, 2010 at 8:14 pm |
What omission, and yes, by your own opinion (argument) you stated “From the outset, Obama should have had the trial take place in an isolated building with as little people around as possible so that it can be done efficiently and safely. It is just baffling to me why it took the yapping of Mayor Bloomberg for Obama to see the all-too-clear light of common sense.“
May 3, 2010 at 7:20 am |
You do not know whether I believe the detainees should have been tried in military tribunals. In fact, I think that is a better idea, given the context.
June 17, 2010 at 9:15 am |
This Sheriff/citizen is responsibly to follow the law, there are 2 involved here 1070 & 2160. 2160 has clarified any questions in the 1070. There is no way the bill is racist if you have read both of these laws. Not following the law affects your economy, jobs, money spent on healthcare, schools, this money spent on these for illegal immigrants can not be spent on citizens. The extra burden on AZ citizens is unfair to citizens. Also this country’s language is English, we’ve never changed that for any immigrant group. Our flag is the United States flag not the Mexican flag, why have you allowed this. Presidents have sent home mexicans home before, as many as 15,000. That is what should be done, then come in legally. Do not sneak in like rats that come to poison the country, come in like men and women to love and build up the Snited States.
June 17, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
I didn’t know it was my duty as a citizen not to have a Mexican Flag