It's more of a shorthand for the audience for judicial opinions. Very few people pay any attention to the Supreme Court. Think about it. The Court issues dozens of opinions every term; how many can you identify, even by topic?

It is my understanding that it was the Senate bill that was enacted. But if I'm wrong, well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Here is (from karnak's link) the section of the House bill that corresponds to the excerpt to the Senate bill I posted earlier.

<B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.>

Sorry, I was trying to be funny, and not succeeding.

"One out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanic and you have now put a target on their back on one of three citizens if they're walking their dog around the neighborhood. If they are walking their child to school. They are an American citizens and a legal, legal immigrant and now put a target on their back and make them think when they walk out their door, they may have to prove something. I will tell you that is un-American. It's unacceptable and un-American.

"Where's Mitt Romney? Where's Newt Gingrich? Where's Mike Huckabee?"

Conservative commentator Joe Scarborough.

Professor Rogoff did not play chess for very many years, and he is now a very prominent economist, so this page because a de facto policy/political page.

Let's stipulate that Obama has in fact exercised "lax oversight and weak leadership," though I don't agree. That does not justify passing a repressive and blatantly unconstitutional law.

<The U.S. was a forerunner on progressive income taxation during most of those years - which I think guided to healthy corporation-investments, instead of skyhigh bonuses like nowadays.>

U.S. marginal rates used to be much higher than they are now, but I don't know how they matched up with the rest of the developed world. I believe in the 60s American tax rates were lower than those in the U.K.; I don't know about Sweden or the large Continental economies. This whole area is something I could stand to know more about.

At least in Geo. Harrison's income category.

I hope that isn't aimed at me. A moi. I resent it. I mean, I would resent it if it was aimed at me. Were aimed. Was.

This is the kind of unsubstantiated slur that gives rise to libel suits. Naturally, I'm not going to sue anyone. It isn't aimed at me, is it? Tell me it isn't. Not that I care one way or the other. I'm not the sort that goes around suing people.

The great divide on immigration seems to be enforcement versus a path to legalization.

The Arizona law isn't too different from existing federal law 287g which may be unconstitutional as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...(g)

updated 5:18 a.m. ET April 26, 2010
The <CIA is using new, smaller missiles and advanced surveillance techniques> to minimize civilian casualties <in its targeted killings of suspected insurgents> in Pakistan's tribal areas, <according to current and former officials> in the United States and Pakistan.

<cormier: >

Yes, conventional weapons are obsolete for asassinations. Radio controlled mini and nano drones have replaced conventional weapons. They don't even have to fly or be bigger than a dragonfly.

"But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?"