Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Explosive New Evidence Shows Ruling of Arizona Judge (Susan Bolton) Illegal
Source:
Examiner
URL Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Con ... ows-ruling-of-AZ-judge-illegal
Published: Aug 2, 2010
Author: Anthony G. Martin
Post Date: 2010-08-02 05:09:13 by Murron
Keywords: None
Views: 145051
Comments: 184
Explosive New Evidence Shows Ruling of Arizona Judge (Susan Bolton) Illegal 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. (Daniel Bayer/CBS News via Getty Images). The inept U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder. 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 101.
#4. To: Murron (#0)
Nice Find Murron. I wonder why no one found that before. I wonder how that piece of crap war is going to try and spin this one.
Get out your tissues.
My tears are for my very gullible fellow Americans who fall for the Constitutional crisis alarm every time.
You who...believe 0bama's every subversive usurpation of the authority and consent of We the People? You would have made a great Nazi wife.
Rule of law means that We the People are not the law, but are under the law. If we can get enough of our fellow citizens to agree with us, we can make new law, or change old law and then we will be under that, however, we are never above the law.
And where does that leave 0bama? ABOVE the Law? He's not a Monarch, and his Administration and Czars are not a Monarchy - you know that, right? Do you understand the concept of "Representative Government"?
How has he put himself above the law?
You mean as a border advocate of invading Mexican citizenry over that of Arizonians?
I didn't ask a question expecting a question as an answer. Can you put that in a form that responds to the interrogatory with which you were presented? Thanks.
I think somehow you understand the gist. Maybe I'm overestimating your intelligence again (what happened you you?) You've asked how 0bama put himself above the law, right? For one, he's ignored US law and advised the DoJ to take an adversarial position on the side of Mexico over America regarding border enforcement. Hasn't he?
My first response is "No he hasn't". But since I've taken you off bozo today, I'll give you a chance to rant a little by asking, how do you believe he has?
*SURPRISE!!* Since I've taken you off bozo today, I'll give you a chance to rant a little by asking, how do you believe he has? Why don't you tell me how 0bama and Holder have not taken an adversarial position on the side of Mexico over America regarding border enforcement in Arizona?
You are asking the wrong question.
You are asking the wrong question. You mean "inconvenient" question, don't you? 0bama and Holder are the adversaries of the citizens of Arizona, and have called on Judge Susan Bolton to plead their case to oppose enforcing not only their own Federal Law regarding border enforcement and invasion of foreigners, but the Arizona Law that actually upholds the former. What's wrong with this picture? Please tell me - either one of you.
First, the question itself, is a logical fallacy. Second, the DOJ is pleading the federal government's case before the Judge. A judge does not plead a case, a judge decides, you know, judges. It is the judges role to rule according to the law. Again, Obama has actually stepped up enforcement, Arizona's immigrant population has decreased by about a third, Arizona's crime rate is down significantly, so why this challenge to the federal government's role in immigration enforcement now?
It's not a question, it's a statement of fact. Second, the DOJ is pleading the federal government's case before the Judge. A judge does not plead a case, a judge decides, you know, judges. It is the judges role to rule according to the law. Yes - Bolton's judicial decision was indeed a reflection of advocacy for 0bama's FedGov position which was adversarial to Arizona's - as well of the FedGov's own law. She, like 0bama is DEAD WRONG according to real law - not her fake interpretation.
Then why is Governor Brewer willing to "tweak" the law to conform to the ruling?
Chyeah - "Enforcement"= "Twaeking." Only in your world.
Huh? I have to say, your even less coherent than usual. Guess that's what comes from kissing Goldi's ass, eh?
You're cheating - You spelled "Tweak" "twaek" the first time around. I have to say, your even less coherent than usual. Guess that's what comes from kissing Goldi's ass, eh? Why must the human anatomy and it's worship always be one post away with you?
#102. To: Liberator (#101)
It's called "Edit".
It was a figure of speech which I will not bear the responsibility for you taking literally.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: mininggold, lucysmom (#4)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#6)
Get out your tissues.
#31. To: lucysmom (#13)
My tears are for my very gullible fellow Americans who fall for the Constitutional crisis alarm every time.
#34. To: Liberator (#31)
You who...believe 0bama's every subversive usurpation of the authority and consent of We the People?
#38. To: lucysmom (#34)
Rule of law means that We the People are not the law, but are under the law. If we can get enough of our fellow citizens to agree with us, we can make new law, or change old law and then we will be under that, however, we are never above the law.
#41. To: Liberator (#38)
#52. To: war (#41)
How has he [0bama] put himself above the law?
#53. To: Liberator (#52)
You mean as a border advocate of invading Mexican citizenry over that of Arizonians?
#62. To: war (#53)
(Edited)
#64. To: Liberator (#62)
(Edited)
For one, he's ignored US law and advised the DoJ to take an adversarial position on the side of Mexico over America regarding border enforcement. Hasn't he?
#69. To: war (#64)
(Edited)
My first response is "No he hasn't".
#73. To: Liberator (#69)
Why don't you tell me how 0bama and Holder have not taken an adversarial position on the side of Mexico over America regarding border enforcement in Arizona?
#80. To: lucysmom, war (#73)
Why don't you tell me how 0bama and Holder have not taken an adversarial position on the side of Mexico over America regarding border enforcement in Arizona?
#88. To: Liberator (#80)
0bama and Holder are the adversaries of the citizens of Arizona, and have called on Judge Susan Bolton to plead their case to oppose enforcing not only their own Federal Law regarding border enforcement and invasion of foreigners, but the Arizona Law that actually upholds the former.
#93. To: lucysmom (#88)
First, the question itself, is a logical fallacy.
#95. To: Liberator (#93)
(Edited)
Yes - Bolton's judicial decision was indeed a reflection of advocacy
#98. To: war (#95)
why if Governor Brewer willing to "twaek" the law to conform to the ruling?
#99. To: Liberator (#98)
Chyeah - "Enforcement" = "Tweaking."
#101. To: war (#99)
Chyeah - "Enforcement" = "Tweaking."
Replies to Comment # 101. You're cheating - You spelled "Tweak" "twaek" the first time around.
#105. To: Liberator (#101)
(Edited)
Why must the human anatomy and it's worship always be one post away with you?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 101.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]