Forums | MacLife

jerwin wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

KingFred wrote:

Nothing to fix, that is, word for word, a direct and accurate quote.

It's wrongly quoted when you don't give the reason behind the statement.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say. More advanced constructions come later.

I said exactly what I meant, now if it was taken in the context in which the conversation was following at the time it would of not of sounded as KF has made it to sound.

I said that quote in the way that changing people's minds here is virtually impossible due to the fact of the liberal leaning slant this forum takes.... and then I said that quote.

Thanks, Sassy.

For your amusement, I present SUGARMAN v. DOUGALL, 413 U.S. 634 (1973)

J. Blackmun wrote:

While we rule that 53 is unconstitutional, we do not hold that, on the basis of an individualized determination, an alien may not be refused, or discharged from, [413 U.S. 634, 647]   public employment, even on the basis of noncitizenship, if the refusal to hire, or the discharge, rests on legitimate state interests that relate to qualifications for a particular position or to the characteristics of the employee. We hold only that a flat ban on the employment of aliens in positions that have little, if any, relation to a State's legitimate interest, cannot withstand scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.

and BERNAL v. FAINTER, 467 U.S. 216 (1984)

J. Marshall wrote:

As a general matter, a state law that discriminates on the basis of alienage can be sustained only if it can withstand strict judicial scrutiny. 5 In order to withstand strict scrutiny, the law must advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means available. 6 Applying this principle, [467 U.S. 216, 220]   we have invalidated an array of state statutes that denied aliens the right to pursue various occupations. In Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973), we struck down a state statute barring aliens from employment in permanent positions in the competitive class of the state civil service. In In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973), we nullified a state law excluding aliens from eligibility for membership in the State Bar. And in Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976), we voided a state law that excluded aliens from the practice of civil engineering.

We have, however, developed a narrow exception to the rule that discrimination based on alienage triggers strict scrutiny. This exception has been labeled the "political function" exception and applies to laws that exclude aliens from positions intimately related to the process of democratic self-government. The contours of the "political function" exception are outlined by our prior decisions. In Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978), we held that a State may require police to be citizens because, in performing a fundamental obligation of government, police "are clothed with authority to exercise an almost infinite variety of discretionary powers" often involving the most sensitive areas of daily life. Id., at 297. In Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979), we held that a State may bar aliens who have not declared their intent to become citizens from teaching in the public schools because teachers, like police, possess a high degree of responsibility and discretion in the fulfillment of a basic governmental obligation. They have direct, day-to-day contact with students, exercise unsupervised discretion over them, act as role models, and influence their students about the government and the political process. Id., at 78-79. Finally, in Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982), we held that a State may bar aliens from positions as probation officers because they, like police and teachers, routinely exercise discretionary power, involving a basic governmental function, that places them in a position of direct authority over other individuals. [467 U.S. 216, 221]

If I had a copy of Shepards, I might be able to determine whether these cases are still reliable, Alas, I don't, and have had to consult the dozens of cases citing these precedents. I may have missed one.