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: 144729
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
#1. To: All (#0)
"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."
ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are: State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you! See where it says, “State of Arizona”? And “Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity”? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice). In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2: ...Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original] Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it! So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider: 1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. 2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus: ....the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.”...(para 13) When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped - by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 - of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona. For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20. Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country. The attorney is, "Publius Huldah": She is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA. She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution. Publius can be reached at: Publiushuldah@twlakes.net
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.
Read it and weep.
Get out your tissues.
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. Thank you... war, and all the other liberal, bleeding heart shills will spin this anyway they think makes sense to them, won't matter that what they spew isn't 'legal', what matters to them is who YELLS the loudest! Now I want to see Brewer take this and run with it...I don't want her compromising with anyone about her states Constitutional Right to defend itself, since it is apparent this administration has no intentions of doing!
LOL..you pinged lucysmom...gawd, her head will explode. I tried to post each step above in the simplist/smallest paragraphs so that they can be better understood, but jeeze stone, you have to have a tiny bit of comprehension to understand this....just the 'Petition for Writ of Mandamus' will confuse the hell outta her...&;-)
If Zero shreds the Constitution in the forest and The State Media doesn't hear him, does it make a sound?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
This person who has insconsed himself in our WH does not have to go into some forest to shred the Constitution, he, and other's before him do this quite out in the open, but like my tagline says, all you'll hear is a whimper...so far, there has been no BANG! Listen Up people, it wasn't just a coincident, or accident that this person, this Obominator, was a Constitutional Professor, this chosen field was never for anything as nobel as learning to preserve the U.S. Constitution, but to learn better how to use it, change it, alter it, SHRED it....think about. You have to better understand that which you plan to change...or destroy! jmho!
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1345 United States as plaintiff Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.
Quit spinning the constitution trumps bills. You also ignore the word except. Congress created the constitution.
My tears are for my very gullible fellow Americans who fall for the Constitutional crisis alarm every time.
I feel sorry for lucy. Her mom aint right. Poor kid.
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 81 > § 1251 § 1251. Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
They can wage war on Mexico. As in shooting to kill.
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1345 United States as plaintiff Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.
Hey dumbass creating the constitution was an act of congress. Go down to Arizona and try to stop them. Maybe they will shoot your worthless ass.
Was an act of a convention that was held in Annapolis and then ratified by the people in conventions in their respective states. That said, read what Congress' powers in Article III are.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. 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, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
How was it possible for Congress to have created the Constitution when the Constitution came before Congress?
You mean the Article I Congress. There was a US Congress that decreed that a convention should be held in Annapolis to correct the defects of the Articles of Confederation. That is how we got the current USCON.
I see your point, however the convention went beyond its original mandate and didn't just revise (correct the defects) the Articles of Confederation, but created a new Constitution and a new government.
Yep. There were and are some, at the time and at the present, who claim that the USCON was unlawfully created and should be null and void. They are equally as nutty as the people who believe this guy here.
... 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. Has the State of Arizona made such a claim? If not, why not? 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. No, its not. There is a difference between the acts of individuals and the hostile acts of governments.
However it was ratified according to the rules in the Articles of Confederation.
Yep. The A/C specifically says that while perpetual it could be altered by an Act of Congress ratified by the states in convention: Congress assembled present Newhampshire Massachusetts Connecticut New York New Jersey Pensylvania. Delaware Virginia North Carolina South Carolina and Georgia and from Maryland Mr Ross Congress having received the report of the Convention lately assembled in Philadelphia Resolved Unanimously that the said Report with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in Order to be submitted to a convention of Delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.
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. HA!! Another charade by 0bama exposed (and that of his puppetmeisters.)
I haven't scrolled down yet, but it ought to be stench-worthy.
Why? I think a state should be able to make any god damned law they want and have never said anything to the contrary. A law automatically putting those with the name of Stone in jail would be a good start. The whole system has become an attorney employment act anyway.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
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.
Enter Screen Names of recipients separated by commas or semicolons. AKA was right about you. You ARE a lying POS.
That law doesn't exist? BTW, are you ever going to defend that graph you put up or should we just accept that it's the fingerpainting of a raving lunatic?
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.
You're a pompous ass. I don't need to defend it. The proof is all there, for you to dig through. In other words, the "defend" is already done. If you choose to challenge it, I invite you to try... But of course, for you to challenge, you'll need to know what it is your attempting to challenge. For that, I'll even give you a link. Start your education... Shadowstats Primers and Reports. I suggest you start with the "Series Master Introduction," and once you have your brain wrapped around that, then move down the list, in order.
Your point is that the government enjoys the consent of the people? Now? Do you have any recent data to support that hypothesis?
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"?
Do you have any recent data to support that hypothesis? Nice catch. Dwarf will probably cite Jefferson now.
Our government is not subject to a continual referendum but to elections held at regular intervals. So, absent impeachment or overthrow, the consent is explict to the election and continuous to the next one. Do you have any recent data to support that hypothesis? The only "data" that is relevant is found in Article I and II [and as further amended] in the USCON.
How has he put himself above the law?
Comments (42 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
#2. To: All (#1)
"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."
#3. To: All (#2)
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.
#4. To: Murron (#0)
#5. To: Murron, go65, skip intro, war, brian s. (#3)
#6. To: mininggold, lucysmom (#4)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#4)
(Edited)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#9. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#8)
Same as the old jackass boss
#10. To: Ignore Amos, A K A Stone, ALL (#9)
"If Zero shreds the Constitution in the forest and The State Media doesn't hear him, does it make a sound?"
#11. To: Murron (#0)
(Edited)
#12. To: war (#11)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#6)
Get out your tissues.
#14. To: lucysmom (#13)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
#16. To: lucysmom (#15)
#17. To: A K A Stone (#12)
#18. To: war (#17)
#19. To: A K A Stone (#18)
.. creating the constitution was an act of congress.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#12)
Quit spinning the constitution trumps bills. You also ignore the word except. Congress created the constitution.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Hey dumbass creating the constitution was an act of congress.
#22. To: lucysmom (#21)
(Edited)
How was it possible for Congress to have created the Constitution when the Constitution came before Congress?
#23. To: war (#22)
There was a US Congress that decreed that a convention should be held in Annapolis to correct the defects of the Articles of Confederation.
#24. To: lucysmom (#23)
(Edited)
#25. To: Murron (#0)
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...
#26. To: war (#24)
There were and are some, at the time and at the present, who claim that the USCON was unlawfully created and should be null and void.
#27. To: lucysmom (#26)
However it was ratified according to the rules in the Articles of Confederation.
#28. To: Murron (#1)
"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.
#29. To: A K A Stone, dwarf (#4)
I wonder how that piece of crap war is going to try and spin this one.
#30. 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.
#32. To: war (#11)
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.
#33. To: Capitalist Eric (#32)
#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?
#36. To: war (#33)
BTW, are you ever going to defend that graph you put up or should we just accept that it's the fingerpainting of a raving lunatic?
#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.
#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.
#39. To: Capitalist Eric, war (#37)
Your point is that the government enjoys the consent of the people? Now?
#40. To: Capitalist Eric (#37)
Your point is that the government enjoys the consent of the people? Now?
#41. To: Liberator (#38)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]