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: 144808
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 (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: lucysmom (#48)
Bite your tongue! LOL.
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?
Well that's what she wrote to me when I wouldn't submit to the "Obama was born in Kenya" theory.
or George? WEEEZEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
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?
I misstated the essay, btw. It's 39...not 52...
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?
***GASP*** you ARE ACORN!!!!
No. Just out of curiosity, why do you think Arizona passed its immigration enforcement law challenging the federal government at a time when Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement?
LOL!
What supposed "role" is asserted?? The point is that under his regime, the Fed has ignored this said role of border enforcement and THAT law. AZ ought to sue 0bama and the Fed for negligence, malfeasance, aiding and abetting terrorism and kidnapping, and treason.
*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?
I couldn't tell you how they haven't because I have yet to see evidence that they have. I'm not the one making the charge. You are. You were asked the question. How have they?
HINT: Susan Bolton represented the Fedgov vs. AZ.
Obama is doing a better job of enforcement than Bush - even Clinton did a better job than Bush. In the first six months of 2010, the Obama administration has deported almost as many illegal immigrant criminals than Bush did in 2008. The Mesa Police Department reports a 19 percent decrease in total crimes for the first half of 2009 versus the first half of 2007, including a 10 percent drop in violent crime. Tempe has seen a 25 percent total drop. At the same time, the state’s illegal immigrant population has decreased by as much as one-third thanks to the down U.S. economy, tougher enforcement polices by the federal government and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, as well as the state’s employer sanctions law which goes after businesses who hire undocumented workers, said Steven Camarota, director of the Center for Immigration Studies. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoen...s/2009/07/27/daily89.html So please tell me why Arizona has chosen this time to challenge the federal government.
You are asking the wrong question.
Jeeezzzzzus lady (look who I'm callin a lady), I'd feel sorry for you if you didn't have this great opportunity to look, listen and learn, but my sympathies lie with your children you're holding prisoner, and doomed them to the chains they most certainly will wear, thanks to you, and those like you...TOO FKING STUPID TO LIVE FREE, and fight for the chance to STAY that way! If you don't know your Rights, If you don't know the LAW, the court are under no obligation to inform you, or to protect your Rights. Even if you know your Rights, but lack the guts to fight for them, again, this government, or our court are not obligated to protect you. Whether you know this or not, believe this or not, you are superior to this Government, so why SHOULD they be obligated to inform their Master, your fearless leader? He will NEVER just hand over any Rights or Power you think your intitled too if you are not willing fight him for them. Ignorance of the Law and YOUR Rights is NO EXCUSE! In the same respect, if the executive or legislative branch violates the Constitution, it is YOUR duty to fight to restore the limitations provided by the constitution. In fact, your ignorance or passivity legally empowers your adversary to exploit you. Freedom will not flourish in a nation of ignorant fools and irresponsible weaklings. To live free takes knowledge, nerve, and personal responsibility. And whether you choose to believe this or not, those brave men and women out on the frontlines that you think are making fools of themselves, they are FIGHTING this battle for you too, and they damn sure don't deserve your scorn, but most certainly should have your respect. They fight for your children, their country, their Rights lucysmom...not the rights of Illegal squatters who come here and steal from them what is rightfully theirs. JMHO! sorry for the rant!
Why do you think I favor illegal immigration, Stone? I live in California, for christ's sake.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
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...
Latching on to stereotypes is easier than having to post a thoughtful statement. Must be that 'conservatism' at work again.
"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)
Nope. She was an impartial arbitrator.
I know. We all look alike. It's inconceivable that we could have different opinions about specific issues.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
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.
Now you're just lying as in this argument I cited Madison. And, fwiw, Madison had the same view of judicial review. M. Farrand, supra at 97-98 (Gerry), 109 (King), 2 id. at 28 (Morris and perhaps Sherman). 73 (Wilson), 75 (Strong, but the remark is ambiguous). 76 (Martin), 78 (Mason), 79 (Gorham, but ambiguous), 80 (Rutledge), 92-93 (Madison), 248 (Pinckney), 299 (Morris), 376 (Williamson), 391 (Wilson), 428 (Rutledge), 430 (Madison), 440 (Madison), 589 (Madison); 3 id. at 220 (Martin). The only expressed opposition to judicial review came from Mercer with a weak seconding from Dickinson. “Mr. Mercer . . . disapproved of the Doctrine that the Judges as expositors of the Constitution should have authority to declare a law void. He thought laws ought to be well and cautiously made, and then to be uncontroulable.” 2 id. at 298. “Mr. Dickinson was strongly impressed with the remark of Mr. Mercer as to the power of the Judges to set aside the law. He thought no such power ought to exist. He was at the same time at a loss what expedient to substitute.” Id. at 299. Of course, the debates in the Convention were not available when the state ratifying conventions acted, so that the delegates could not have known these views about judicial review in order to have acted knowingly about them. Views, were, however, expressed in the ratifying conventions recognizing judicial review, some of them being uttered by Framers. --M. Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution J. ELLIOT, DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (1836). 131 (Samuel Adams, Massachusetts), 196-197 (Ellsworth, Connecticut). 348, 362 (Hamilton, New York): 445-446. 478 (Wilson, Pennsylvania), 3 id. at 324-25, 539, 541 (Henry, Virginia), 480 (Mason, Virginia), 532 (Madison, Virginia), 570 (Randolph, Virginia); 4 id. at 71 (Steele, North Carolina), 156-157 (Davie, North Carolina). In the Virginia convention, John Marshall observed if Congress “were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judge as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard . . . They would declare it void .... To what quarter will you look for protection from an infringement on the constitution, if you will not give the power to the judiciary? There is no other body that can afford such a protection.” 3 id. at 553-54. Both Madison and Hamilton similarly asserted the power of judicial review in their campaign for ratification: THE FEDERALIST (J. Cooke ed. 1961). See Nos. 39 and 44, at 256, 305 (Madison), Nos. 78 and 81, at 524-530, 541-552 (Hamilton). The persons supporting or at least indicating they thought judicial review existed did not constitute a majority of the Framers, but the absence of controverting statements, with the exception of the Mercer-Dickinson comments, indicates at least acquiesence if not agreements by the other Framers.
Other than it is a total distortion of reality, has no basis in fact and in no way describes absolutely anything that has happened to date? Nothing.
Because you don't believe in extra legal ways to combat it.
In the first six months of 2010, the Obama administration has deported almost as many illegal immigrant criminals than Bush did in 2008. You mean 0bama - like Clinton and Bush - is doing a "better job" at NOT enforcing the border and immigration laws? Yeah, that's some accomplishment. Fact is 0bama has sided with MEXICO vs. Arizona. That's treason. Please tell me why Arizona has chosen this time to challenge the federal government. You've got this exactly ass-backwards; It's the FedGov who's challenged Arizona. I believe the citizens of AZ and it's Governor have already spoken about the myriad of desperate reasons to begin enforcing immigration laws and border enforcement. If it were up to me, both Clinton AND Bush would have been called to task on their respective border negligence.
Treason requires an enemy. Mexico is not an enemy. And you've offered no basis in fact that he's sided with Mexico other than referring back to your own ravenous ravings.
Other than it is a total distortion of reality, has no basis in fact and in no way describes absolutely anything that has happened to date? Nothing. So when you call the cops to remove an uninvited family of Mexicans from your bedroom, you will find "nothing" wrong with them telling you to "STFU, racist!"?
I won't need the cops. And what does that have to do with Arizona when I live in NY?
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?
Sure they are. The Mexican government has advocated the invasion of America by it's army of citizens. It's people have trespassed into the sovereign state of the USA uninvited and demand squatting "rights." The American Fedgov has aided and abetted Mexico and its citizenry's illegal, illicit invasion. The charge remains Treason. For a pseudo-Constitutional "scholar" you are lost in space, Dr. Smith.
What happens when your squatters are armed with machetes? And what does that have to do with Arizona when I live in NY? Everything. An Uninvited Invasion is an Uninvited Invasion.
Cite the act of Congress or EO so declaring. Thanks. Your blatherings carry about as much authority as Yeoman Rand's.
They'll need something that works at a greater distance and with a smaller spread pattern. Everything. An Uninvited Invasion is an Uninvited Invasion. Translated: Nothing.
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.
And what law is that? BTW, your buddy has been awfully silent. He does this, you know, when he knows he's been beat.
Then why is Governor Brewer willing to "tweak" the law to conform to the ruling?
Taking the law into your own hands with firearms is...frowned upon by the 0bama Administration as well as New York. I hope those nice innocent (surviving) Mexican squatters tattle and tell everyone you're a Closet Republican.
That's a lie.
Chyeah - "Enforcement"= "Twaeking." Only in your world.
Comments (99 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSounds like you're channeling Goldi there.
#59. To: Capitalist Eric (#55)
You've made me laugh.
#60. To: Capitalist Eric (#58)
Bite your tongue!
#61. To: Ignore Amos (#47)
Thomas?
#62. To: war (#53)
(Edited)
#63. To: Capitalist Eric (#55)
(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?
#65. To: lucysmom (#60)
#66. To: Liberator (#62)
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?
#67. To: war (#65)
***GASP*** you ARE ACORN!!!!
#68. To: lucysmom (#57)
He isn't advocating for illegal immigrants, he is asserting the federal governments immigration enforcement role.
#69. To: war (#64)
(Edited)
My first response is "No he hasn't".
#70. To: Liberator (#69)
(Edited)
#71. To: war (#70)
I'm not the one making the charge. You are. You were asked the question. How have they?
#72. To: Liberator (#68)
The point is that under his regime, the Fed has ignored this said role of border enforcement and THAT law.
#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?
#74. To: Liberator, lucysmom (#68)
lucysmom: "He isn't advocating for illegal immigrants, he is asserting the federal governments immigration enforcement role."
#75. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Read it and weep.
#76. To: Liberator (#39)
Dwarf will probably cite Jefferson now.
#77. To: Skip Intro (#75)
Why do you think I favor illegal immigration, Stone? I live in California, for christ's sake.
#78. To: Liberator (#71)
Susan Bolton represented the Fedgov vs. AZ.
#79. To: mininggold (#77)
Latching on to stereotypes is easier than having to post a thoughtful statement.
#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?
#81. To: Capitalist Eric (#76)
(Edited)
No, he prefers to cite "Let's have an American Monarchy" Alexander Hamilton.
#82. To: Liberator (#80)
(Edited)
What's wrong with this picture?
#83. To: Skip Intro (#75)
(Edited)
Why do you think I favor illegal immigration, Stone?
#84. To: lucysmom (#72)
Obama is doing a better job of enforcement than Bush - even Clinton did a better job than Bush.
#85. To: Liberator (#84)
(Edited)
Fact is 0bama has sided with MEXICO vs. Arizona. That's treason.
#86. To: war (#82)
What's wrong with this picture?
#87. To: Liberator (#86)
#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.
#89. To: war (#85)
Treason requires an enemy. Mexico is not an enemy.
#90. To: war (#87)
(Edited)
I won't need the cops.
#91. To: Liberator (#89)
Sure they are.
#92. To: Liberator (#90)
What happens when your squatters are armed with machetes?
#93. To: lucysmom (#88)
First, the question itself, is a logical fallacy.
#94. To: Liberator (#93)
(Edited)
as well of the FedGov's own law
#95. To: Liberator (#93)
(Edited)
Yes - Bolton's judicial decision was indeed a reflection of advocacy
#96. To: war (#92)
They'll need something that works at a greater distance and with a smaller spread pattern.
#97. To: Liberator (#96)
Taking the law into your own hands with firearms is...frowned upon by the 0bama Administration as well as New York.
#98. To: war (#95)
why if Governor Brewer willing to "twaek" the law to conform to the ruling?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]