AZ judge illegal

[Gomes]

Sorry. Don't have a link to this story. It appeared in a local paper. I scanned it in and ran it through a letter recognition program. If there are any mis-spelled or missing words, that is the reason ...

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part,

"Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.

This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.

[mountaindew]

Hahahaha this is awesome!!

[mercy]

Originally Posted by Gomes

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.

At the link above? I thought you had scanned this in?

And if the Supreme Court is the only body that can make this decision, don't you think they would have said something about it by now? Or do you think the entire legislative system is just snoozing on the job?

[Gomes]

I did. I didn't include the photo or the graph because they weren't in color and of the individual dot kind photos.

[Gomes]

It appears that electronic copies can be found here.

[mercy]

The original article comes from here:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

Points to note:
1. Each page of this website which carries a "Countdown until Obama leaves Office."

2. Advertising both immediately above and immediately below the main title bar, as well as all over each page. This is not a real newspaper.

3. "Because without America there is no free world" reads the title bar. This is a staunchly conservative opinion website, not a news site.

4. Here is an extract from an editorial advertised on the site's main page:
"It was Barry’s Birthday yesterday. It had to be Barry’s birthday because there is no such thing as Barack, save for the Manchurian candidate knockoff designed by a couple of “autobiographies” and the fill-in-the-blank entity designed by the Global Elite."

This website has all the credibility of a flyer handed out at a Westboro Baptist Church rally. But I'm sure you didn't know about that, as it was merely "scanned" by yourself after reading it in local press.

[Alicia Rose]

Wow, that's hilarious and sad at the same time.

[bigmac]

Let me get this straight Gomes, you're quoting the Canadian equivalent of Fox News as an authority on American constitutional law. May I suggest you Wiki Article 3 section II.

As anyone who has ever read a federal opinion knows the first thing Federal Courts do in any case is determine if jurisdiction is proper.

[HappyFA75]

Originally Posted by bigmac

Let me get this straight Gomes, you're quoting the Canadian equivalent of Fox News as an authority on American constitutional law. May I suggest you Wiki Article 3 section II.

As anyone who has ever read a federal opinion knows the first thing Federal Courts do in any case is determine if jurisdiction is proper.

Eric Holder didnt read the Arizona law. He said so himself. So did other Administration people. They went on the warpath, because they needed the AZ Immigration law to be viewed in a certain way, actual law be darned. Thats consistent with a larger, broader picture as well as getting voting and political support from illegals, and im going to stop that there. The AZ topic is very touchy, however, Legals are in support of it.

And pardon me, but bigmac, if something is reported right, why does it matter who reported it? What if it was reported from an American, visiting in Canada, and he posted it on where he was able to at the time?

Eric Holder did bring this to a Court that was friendly to him, and its rather odd, since the law didnt go into effect yet.

Arizona's sovereignty will prevail in a challenge. The Credit Card Act, pretty sure that was the name of it, of 2009 was "All about States rights, and letting States do what they wanted to do" in strengthening State laws, as a secondary objective than the obvious Credit aspect of the bill. It even restored Gun rights for carriers in Public parks on Federal land, leaving State laws in effect.

I had more supporting stuff. I left it out.

We will see if Kragan says one thing and votes another way, as Sotomayor did. She will ultimately end up being in a ruling on it, so we will all get to see however it goes, as the president does have the right to appoint Judges, and his nomination was validated, so thats kind fo where we are at.

[The Orange Mage]

Okay, selective reading time but not in the way you think.

I would LOVE to see Texas, NM, and AZ wage war on our southern neighbors.

[HappyFA75]

Originally Posted by The Orange Mage

Okay, selective reading time but not in the way you think.

I would LOVE to see Texas, NM, and AZ wage war on our southern neighbors.

I like the way you think.

Sounds like you know CA wont do it!

[Blackjack]

Originally Posted by HappyFA75

What if it was reported from an American, visiting in Canada, and he posted it on where he was able to at the time?

...I am actually speechless at this one. I just... I am absolutely stunned at the stupidity of this statement and I'm completely at a loss for some other way to say it or any way of making it funny.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by The Orange Mage

Okay, selective reading time but not in the way you think.

I would LOVE to see Texas, NM, and AZ wage war on our southern neighbors.

I suspect many residents of those states consider the movement of “illegals” across the border to be an invasion. The Mexican government is not opposing people crossing the border into the US. Could it be called a “non-government” invasion of the US?

[mercy]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

I suspect many residents of those states consider the movement of “illegals” across the border to be an invasion. The Mexican government is not opposing people crossing the border into the US. Could it be called a “non-government” invasion of the US?

Nope. An invasion is an act of war. That's part of the legal definition.

[The Orange Mage]

It's a refugee movement, really, because Mexico is such a shithole. All the more reason to invade it, talk against "nation building" be damned, though I know for sure that we'd botch the hell out of such an operation.

[Mythik]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

I suspect many residents of those states consider the movement of “illegals” across the border to be an invasion.

Only the residents that are complete nut-jobs. Invasion? get real, please.

[Mythik]

Originally Posted by The Orange Mage

It's a refugee movement, really, because Mexico is such a shithole. All the more reason to invade it, talk against "nation building" be damned, though I know for sure that we'd botch the hell out of such an operation.

Mexico is not a "shithole," and we absolutely do not need to invade it.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by Mythik

Only the residents that are complete nut-jobs. Invasion? get real, please.

I don't live along the border. Do you? Perhaps if you lived along the border your perspective could be different. What do you call thousands of people crossing a international border without permission?

[Mythik]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

I don't live along the border. Do you? Perhaps if you lived along the border your perspective could be different.

At present, I do not. However, I spent the first half of my life on the border, and have since spent a fair amount of time in Latin America.

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

What do you call thousands of people crossing a international border without permission?

People, first and foremost.

Yes, they are crossing illegally, and should be held accountable for that. It wouldn't be "illegal immigration" if it weren't, well, illegal.

But an invasion? Sorry, I can't go there. Using words like "invasion" put a spin of hostility on it, and that kind of spin can be very persuasive and powerful -- especially to people who don't think for themselves much. But, we don't know any of them, do we?

Invaders go to other countries to conquer them, not to pick lettuce.