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: 149226
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 # 145.
#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.
The "consent" is through elections. The "authority" in our republic is found in the legislature, the executive branch and the judiciary.
Your point is that the government enjoys the consent of the people? Now? Do you have any recent data to support that hypothesis?
Do you have any recent data to support that hypothesis? Nice catch. Dwarf will probably cite Jefferson now.
No, he prefers to cite "Let's have an American Monarchy" Alexander Hamilton. Beyond that, it's back to the standard bob-and-weave tactics...
Beyond that, it's back to the standard bob-and-weave tactics... Yes, but a Stalinesque Hamilton. Lol - bob & weave. War obfuscates and creates more red herrings and strawmen than anyone I've ever seen.
Huh? Your buddy is loooong gone. Have you figured out why yet?
You mean me? LOL. Only YOU would try to spin the word "lunch." Moron.
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...
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"
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.
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.
Circular reasoning again, LunchPail? Again, I did what you asked. Now you do what you're asked: Defend those numbers as valid.
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.
oops, looks like eric is getting his ass handed to him again, can the bozo be far off.
Chuckles...
There are no replies to Comment # 145. End Trace Mode for Comment # 145.
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?
#35. To: lucysmom (#34)
You who...believe 0bama's every subversive usurpation of the authority and consent of We the People?
#37. To: war (#35)
The "consent" is through elections. The "authority" in our republic is found in the legislature, the executive branch and the judiciary.
#39. To: Capitalist Eric, war (#37)
Your point is that the government enjoys the consent of the people? Now?
#76. To: Liberator (#39)
Dwarf will probably cite Jefferson now.
#103. To: Capitalist Eric, war (#76)
No, he prefers to cite "Let's have an American Monarchy" Alexander Hamilton.
#108. To: Liberator (#103)
Yes, but a Stalinesque Hamilton.
#112. To: war, Liberator (#108)
Your buddy is loooong gone. Have you figured out why yet?
#118. To: Capitalist Eric, Abu el Banat (#112)
Only YOU would try to spin the word "lunch."
#123. To: war (#118)
#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"
#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.
#132. To: Captain LunchPail (#130)
Your statement demonstrates you did NOT read the primer.
#135. To: war (#132)
(Edited)
Again, I did what you asked.
The way it works is YOU state why 1963 is significant.
#138. To: Capitalist Eric (#135)
Keep this up, and I'll just bozo you. Choose.
#145. To: calcon (#138)
Replies to Comment # 145.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]