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: 144942
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
Comments (1-106) not displayed.
.
.
.
#107. To: Liberator (#100)
(Edited)
You do realize that the FedGov, as you call it, BY LAW recognizes the difference between an illegal border orossing - which they've made a criminal offense - and another nation's armed forces crossing the border for the purpose of making war?
Huh? Your buddy is loooong gone. Have you figured out why yet?
The ninth cicuit itself is famous for gettting overturned. My money is on the ninth upholding Bolton and the USSC overturning on appeal.
His nickname "Spinner" is well-deserved. He's a piece of shit.
Huh? So much for your intellectual abilities. You post a lot of stuff, yet you clearly don't understand it. Were you a product of the public skuel system?
You mean me? LOL. Only YOU would try to spin the word "lunch." Moron.
I apologize then. Sometimes I lump you folks together forgetting that sometimes you are on the right side.
Donkey Award comming up for this traitor slut. (Judge Susan Bolton)
You bet, but wouldn't that be an insult to donkey's everywhere?...&;-) Hi CS, haven't see ya around for awhile, hope all is well with you~
I post here quite often but because I live in the PST time zone most of you are asleep when I do so. As for the DONKEY awards they are based on "Pleasure Island" (Disney) or the "Land of Toys" (original) from the story of Pinocchio where bad boys ("Progressives" in my case) are turned into donkeys for their criminal behavior and sloth (Laziness) in order to be put to work in a form more accepting of work than their original one.
States rights Tenth amendment Dr Ron Paul is hiding. He's still in Dennis Kucinich's closet hiding. I wish Dr Paul would fight for us as hard as he fights for Iran.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You seem to take a lot of lunches on these threads. Loooong lunches. [snicker] Looks like you were right, Abu...may your camel always spit with the wind...
What was the methodolgy for your Shadow Stats stuff again? Ooops...time for lunch... Yes, but a Stalinesque Hamilton. If you can make sense of that you've over imbibed. Oh sorry...you're away for lunch...
I can find no reference to a word "skuel" anywhere. Did you misspell skull? And, if so, what is a public skull?
Apparently she's a GOP "traitor slut" - recommended by a Republican Senator and confirmed unanimously be a Republican dominated Senate. On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton on July 21, 2000 to a seat vacated by Robert Broomfield. Bolton was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 3, 2000 on the unanimous consent of the Senate and received commission on October 13, 2000.
It's not MY website. Ask John Williams. CHALLENGE him on his methodology. Go ahead. I dare you. LOL.
lol When he has to defend a position he either takes a lunch break or says someone else has to explain it, ala "It's not my website"
Were you ever in the music or song writing business? ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol
But it is your post USING his stats, correct? And it is your post which is PROMOTING his stats as accurate, correct? Ask John Williams. CHALLENGE him on his methodology When he posts here, I will. Until then, you've been reduced two levels of Moron and shall henceforth be known as Captain LunchPail.
I triple dog dare you to explain why you should be taken with any sense of seriousness.
LOL. hy·poc·ri·sy34; 34;/hjÈpRkrYsi/ Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA –noun, plural -sies.
It's not my website. As to defending his position, had either the pathetic spin-meister (shitbag government shill, war) bothered to READ anything from shadowstats, he'd already KNOW the answer. Instead, he chooses to spin, lie and generally throw out red herrings, in a vain attempt to dupe the fools. Congratulations- YOU were the one he duped. Now... go back, study the primer off the www.shadowstats.com main page, and then get back to me. One particular year should jump off the page at you, if you even glance at what I'm talking about: 1983. If that year doesn't have significance for you, then you're simply not in the game... Oh, you'll think you're on top of things, but you'll be so far behind the curve, you'll think you're leading. (kinda' like war...) If you feel comfortable in your current ignorance, I dig. It's like when my daughter fills her diaper- it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but ultimately, it's bad. LOL.
So? It IS your argument. And thanks for the PING, mon capitaine.
I told you that I did read that primer. It did nothing to validate their numbers and I told you why it did not. Your response was "I think I'm dining out today." If that year doesn't have significance for you, then you're simply not in the game... Oh, you'll think you're on top of things, but you'll be so far behind the curve, you'll think you're leading. That's not the way it works, Ziffle. The way it works is YOU state why 1963 is significant. In other words, BUILD YOUR OWN CASE. Oops...is that the lunch bell I hear?
Your statement demonstrates you did NOT read the primer. Nice try, asshole. You're busted, lying AGAIN.
any possibility to permanently change his name to "spinner?" God knows, the jerkwad earned it...
Circular reasoning again, LunchPail? Again, I did what you asked. Now you do what you're asked: Defend those numbers as valid.
GOLDI!!! Help me GOLDI!!!! [snicker]
Liar. I didn't say 1963 was significant. The stats weren't altered in the 60's, you pathetic government WHORE. Maybe you should go back and actually READ it, now... And you'd get that you were just caught... AGAIN. Keep this up, and I'll just bozo you. Choose.
Because I really don't give a fuck what you say... You're easily seen for what you are...
ROFL
oops, looks like eric is getting his ass handed to him again, can the bozo be far off.
Yet here you are stomping your feet and threatening to hold your breath until your face turns blue. Meanwhile, back in Adultville, you still haven't a) explained why Shadow Stats' information is valid and b) why 1983 is an important year.
You mean me? LOL. Only YOU would try to spin the word "lunch." Moron. Heh! Dontcha know? We're supposed to hang out and hang on while war cuts and pastes all afternoon. How dare you not wait baited breathe and forego lunch!
I know you're a hypocrite. You demand that my argument conform to YOUR standards while yourself adhering to no standards whatsoever.
Chuckles...do you ***think*** you're helping him by bumping this up? What you're really doing is making the environment even MORE target rich.
Okay...I typo'd sue me. So explain why 1983 was significant.
Chuckles...
Adultville??? My, you DO think highly of yourself... LMAO. Where did I ever say on this thread, that 1963 was significant? Hmmmm?????????????????????????? Didn't read the primer, DID you? Didn't actually UNDERSTAND what was said, DID you? Can't find your ass with both hands, and a set of written instructions, CAN you??? Psssttt.... Hey, dummy.... you're BUSTED!!!!!!! You've demonstrated you're a lying sack of shit.... and it only took... I don't know, 20 minutes to trap you. Easy-peezy, as they say. Now that I've made my point- that you're a lying government shill, I'm done with you. You're also an attention-whore... So, I'll take away, what you want most: attention. Buh-BYE,
What you're really doing is making the environment even MORE target rich. As usual, you see things not as they are, but as you fantasize they are. Outposting Eric with petty BS only means you're trying to convince yourself that you've "won" the debate. He's laughing...HELLO.
Comments (148 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThat would be the Law that requires the FedGov to protect the US from foreign Invasion
#108. To: Liberator (#103)
Yes, but a Stalinesque Hamilton.
#109. To: lucysmom (#106)
If she was wrong, the 9th Circuit will overturn her decision.
#110. To: Liberator (#103)
War obfuscates and creates more red herrings and strawmen than anyone I've ever seen.
#111. To: war (#108)
(Edited)
Yes, but a Stalinesque Hamilton.
#112. To: war, Liberator (#108)
Your buddy is loooong gone. Have you figured out why yet?
#113. To: Skip Intro (#75)
Why do you think I favor illegal immigration, Stone? I live in California, for christ's sake.
#114. To: Murron (#0)
(Edited)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#115. To: Coral Snake (#114)
Donkey Award comming up for this traitor slut. (Judge Susan Bolton)
#116. To: Murron (#115)
(Edited)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#117. To: Murron (#0)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#118. To: Capitalist Eric, Abu el Banat (#112)
Only YOU would try to spin the word "lunch."
#119. To: Capitalist Eric (#111)
You post a lot of stuff, yet you clearly don't understand it.
#120. To: LunchPail (#111)
Were you a product of the public skuel [sic] system?
#121. To: Coral Snake (#114)
Donkey Award comming up for this traitor slut. (Judge Susan Bolton)
#122. To: war (#119)
What was the methodolgy for your Shadow Stats stuff again?
#123. To: war (#118)
#124. To: Captain LunchPail (#122)
(Edited)
It's not MY website.
#125. To: Captain LunchPail (#122)
I dare you.
#126. To: war (#125)
explain why you should be taken with any sense of seriousness.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy
#127. To: Abu el Banat (#123)
When he has to defend a position he either takes a lunch break or says someone else has to explain it, ala "It's not my website"
#128. To: Captain LunchPail (#127)
(Edited)
It's not my website.
#129. To: Captain LunchPail (#127)
(Edited)
Now... go back, study the primer off the www.shadowstats.com main page, and then get back to me.
#130. To: war (#129)
I told you that I did read that primer. It did nothing to validate their numbers.
#131. To: A K A Stone (#129)
#132. To: Captain LunchPail (#130)
Your statement demonstrates you did NOT read the primer.
#133. To: Capitalist Eric (#131)
(Edited)
#134. To: Captain LunchPail (#131)
(Edited)
#135. To: war (#132)
(Edited)
Again, I did what you asked.
The way it works is YOU state why 1963 is significant.
#136. To: war (#133)
#137. To: Capitalist Eric, Abu el Boner (#127)
If you feel comfortable in your current ignorance, I dig. It's like when my daughter fills her diaper- it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but ultimately, it's bad.
#138. To: Capitalist Eric (#135)
Keep this up, and I'll just bozo you. Choose.
#139. To: Captain LunchPail (#136)
(Edited)
Because I really don't give a fuck what you say...
#140. To: Capitalist Eric, war (#112)
Your buddy is loooong gone. Have you figured out why yet?
#141. To: Captain LunchPail (#126)
#142. To: Liberator (#140)
#143. To: Capitalist Eric (#135)
(Edited)
#144. To: Captain LunchPail (#141)
I didn't say 1963 was significant.
#145. To: calcon (#138)
#146. To: war (#139)
Meanwhile, back in Adultville, you still haven't a) explained why Shadow Stats' information is valid and b) why 1963 is an important year.
#147. To: war, Capitalist Eric (#142)
Chuckles...do you ***think*** you're helping him by bumping this up?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]