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: 144971
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 # 59.
#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?
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.
You: The only "data" that is relevant is found in Article I and II [and as further amended] in the USCON. Translation: "No." Thanks for playing! What do we have for the loser, Johnny???
You're translating the wrong language. Try translating "knowledge". Explicit to the consent of the governed is the fixed term to which that consent has been granted. [Federalist 52, James Madison, paraphrased] Quick: Tell me I'm spinning because Big Government types ALWAYS quote Madison.
You're posting in English, your responses (while misleading and hypocritical) are quite clear. Again, thanks for playing. You've made me laugh.
And also unresponsive. Do you have a salient counter point [we both know the answer is "no"] or do you believe that laughter is as articulate as you can get when faced with an insurmountable argument?
There are no replies to Comment # 59. End Trace Mode for Comment # 59.
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.
#40. To: Capitalist Eric (#37)
Your point is that the government enjoys the consent of the people? Now?
#45. To: war (#40)
ME: Do you have any recent data to support that hypothesis?
#51. To: Capitalist Eric (#45)
(Edited)
Translation: "No."
#55. To: war (#51)
You're translating the wrong language.
#59. To: Capitalist Eric (#55)
You've made me laugh.
Replies to Comment # 59.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]