Wrong Court Ruled On Arizona Law

[skyrider 0]

Wrong Court Ruled on Arizona Law


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.

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.


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. And there are established procedures by which Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton can be removed from her position as a result of her violating her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America ..

http://americanlibertyriders.ning.com/forum/topics/wrong-court-ruled-on-arizona

[turtlespeed 226]

This makes me wonder if Jan knew about this and wanted the egg to be placed firmly where it is, if this is true.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

I think you'll find that despite what is written in the Constitution, states' rights are pretty close to nill and have been for a while.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I think you'll find that despite what is written in the Constitution, states' rights are pretty close to nill and have been for a while.

The article did expand on other things, but the main premise here is that the decision is non binding.

Score one for the good guys.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dgskydive 0]

hey Gypsy. Dont forget UTEP. Texas has the same problems.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/texas-calls-for-more-border-security-after-stray-mexican-bullet-flies-into-us-college/story-e6frf7jx-1225909350830

This isnt the first time a Texas city along the mexican border has been hit by bullets from Mexico either.

Dom

[skyrider 0]

Quote

hey Gypsy. Dont forget UTEP. Texas has the same problems.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/texas-calls-for-more-border-security-after-stray-mexican-bullet-flies-into-us-college/story-e6frf7jx-1225909350830

This isnt the first time a Texas city along the mexican border has been hit by bullets from Mexico either.

My wifes grandmother settled in texas back in the teens, she had many stories of shoot outs with Illegals and chasing them off from stealing their cattle!

[DanG 1]

Quote

My wifes grandmother settled in texas back in the teens, she had many stories of shoot outs with Illegals and chasing them off from stealing their cattle!

Hmm, so this problem today isn't any different from a century ago. Why is this such a hot button issue then? Could it be because it is an election year?

- Dan G

[masterrig 1]

I hope, this is true and holds-up. If, the Federal govt. is going to wallow in denial that there 'is no problem on our southwest border', the border states CAN do something about the problem. We've had running gun battles between law enforcement and 'uniformed' Mexican 'invaders' protecting loads of dope. Border Patrol and sheriff's deputies stay 'camped-out' at the entrance road to where I live. I think, those politicians who we voted into office, need to visit our southwest border and see for themselves. Not just looking from some hotel window, either.
This decision is great news!


Chuck

[DanG 1]

Quote

This decision is great news!

Not a decision, just an opinion piece printed in Canada.

- Dan G

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

My wifes grandmother settled in texas back in the teens, she had many stories of shoot outs with Illegals and chasing them off from stealing their cattle!

Ill cut them some slack for stealing cattle back in the "teens". Lots of Texans used to cross into Mexico to steal cattle as well. Your wives grandmother may have bought them legally, but there is a good chance the person she got them from stole them from a Mexican rancher.

That being said. This isn't the late 1800's or early 1900's anymore and they arent stealing cattle. They are shooting up each other and the bullets are crossing over. Hitting schools and Government Building.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-elpaso_25tex.ART.State.Edition1.3583580.html

This story talks about UTEP but also the El Paso City Hall and a local charity.

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Hmm, so this problem today isn't any different from a century ago. Why is this such a hot button issue then? Could it be because it is an election year?

Or maybe Americans are eventually going to end up getting shot and killed on our side of the border by bullets from Mexico?

I don't like politicians either, but this is a real problem Dan. Would you be calling it a political game if you had a child attending UTEP and they got shot walking into a class from a bullet that came from another country?

Dom

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

My wifes grandmother settled in texas back in the teens, she had many stories of shoot outs with Illegals and chasing them off from stealing their cattle!

Hmm, so this problem today isn't any different from a century ago. Why is this such a hot button issue then? Could it be because it is an election year?

No - it's becasue we are fed up with it and are now taking steps to correct it.

Ever heard of the pebble in the shoe?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[AndyBoyd 0]

The Supreme Court has indicated that Art. III. sec. 2, cl. 2 does not mean that it is mandatory that every case involving a state as a party must go directly to the Supreme Court.

"We construe Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2 to honor our original jurisdiction but to make it obligatory only in appropriate cases. And the question of what is appropriate concerns, of course, the seriousness and dignity of the claim; yet beyond that it necessarily involves the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had." Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 451 (1992) (quoting Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 93 (1972)).

The attorney who wrote this article was either aware of this and was trying to make a political point, or he was not aware of this, which means he isn't very bright. Either way, it is hard to take this article seriously. Don't worry, though, this case will end up before the Supreme Court soon enough.

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Not a decision, just an opinion piece printed in Canada

So the quotes from the Constitution are an opinion?

Dom

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Not a decision, just an opinion piece printed in Canada

So the quotes from the Constitution are an opinion?

That depends on where you stand compared to center.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

My wifes grandmother settled in texas back in the teens, she had many stories of shoot outs with Illegals and chasing them off from stealing their cattle!

Hmm, so this problem today isn't any different from a century ago. Why is this such a hot button issue then? Could it be because it is an election year?

Because the gates have beeen left open too long.......

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

My wifes grandmother settled in texas back in the teens, she had many stories of shoot outs with Illegals and chasing them off from stealing their cattle!

Hmm, so this problem today isn't any different from a century ago. Why is this such a hot button issue then? Could it be because it is an election year?

Sooo, following your logic, we shoudl just let it continue? what the hell, it has happened for many years...why stop it?

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

My wifes grandmother settled in texas back in the teens, she had many stories of shoot outs with Illegals and chasing them off from stealing their cattle!

Ill cut them some slack for stealing cattle back in the "teens". Lots of Texans used to cross into Mexico to steal cattle as well. Your wives grandmother may have bought them legally, but there is a good chance the person she got them from stole them from a Mexican rancher.

That being said. This isn't the late 1800's or early 1900's anymore and they arent stealing cattle. They are shooting up each other and the bullets are crossing over. Hitting schools and Government Building.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-elpaso_25tex.ART.State.Edition1.3583580.html

This story talks about UTEP but also the El Paso City Hall and a local charity.

They ARE butchering cattle....all over the border! ask any rancher that owns land there!

[normiss 906]

No doubt.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Not a decision, just an opinion piece printed in Canada

So the quotes from the Constitution are an opinion?

Turtle:

A conflict in which the state is a party actually has a chance of getting before the SCOTUS. The Constitution provides that chance. But it doesn't have to.

Article III of the Constitution isn't self-enabling so it needs laws to make it work. These laws allow Congress to set certain standards for the SCOTUS. On top of that, the SCOTUS may set its own rules. There are the federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There is all of Title 18 of the United States Code.

The SCOTUS is permitted by the Constitution to hear this case on a trial level. It doesn't HAVE to.

Ps - this try for an appeal would constitute a "collateral attack." Courts hate those and they rarely work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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.

Hmmm I wonder if the maroons out there exercising their rights will get the idea that mexican season is about to open

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

This decision is great news!

Not a decision, just an opinion piece printed in Canada.

Oops! Whatever it is, I hope it's true!


Chuck

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

They ARE butchering cattle....all over the border! ask any rancher that owns land there

That i didn't know. Shoot them for trespassing then. Just make sure to post signs in Spanish first that all trespassers will be shot. Thats still legal in the U.S. right?

Dom

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

My wifes grandmother settled in texas back in the teens, she had many stories of shoot outs with Illegals and chasing them off from stealing their cattle!

Hmm, so this problem today isn't any different from a century ago. Why is this such a hot button issue then? Could it be because it is an election year?

The problem is much different today! Then, it was a few head of cattle. Today, it's human lives! People are being murdered on both sides of the border all because some self-centered 'recreational drug' users need their daily fix!


Chuck

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This decision is great news!

Not a decision, just an opinion piece printed in Canada.

Oops! Whatever it is, I hope it's true!


Chuck

It's not true. You might want to read posts 13 and 20.