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: 144722
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?
And you will probably cite one or several of the sexual practices of gay men. I'd prefer Jefferson.
Nope. When you "dig" all you find are lies about how BLS and the FRB indexes are distorted. There is no information as to how Shadow Stats compiles and charts its data.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew... You don't want to learn, and I'm not going to spoon-feed you. "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
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???
The used of the title "Czar" is informal invented in 1982 by UPI; for instance the formal title of the Drug Czar is "The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy".
Thomas? or George?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
Sounds like you're channeling Goldi there.
That circular reasoning is what you use to get out of your predicaments every time you find yourself in one? Not here it won't. There is NOTHING in that link that explains how Shadow Stats compiles its numbers. NOTHING. In re inflation: It does not list a basket of goods. IN re:UNemployment it does not point to any survey of its own but cherry picks BLS's own data.
Nope. It sounds vaguely like "I'm not your file clerk." He knows his bullshit doesn't stand up to minimal scrutiny and it's why he can;t defend it. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge bitch slaps him every time. You'll never see him defend a point. You'll never see him defend anything.
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 mean as a border advocate of invading Mexican citizenry over that of Arizonians?
I didn't ask a question expecting a question as an answer. Can you put that in a form that responds to the interrogatory with which you were presented? Thanks.
No. That would be YOU as usual. Citing it just now for no reason (other than advertising?)
You're posting in English, your responses (while misleading and hypocritical) are quite clear. Again, thanks for playing. You've made me laugh.
Post by post 5 bucks each... How many times I have versus how many times you have. Done?
He isn't advocating for illegal immigrants, he is asserting the federal governments immigration enforcement role.
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.
Huh? I have to say, your even less coherent than usual. Guess that's what comes from kissing Goldi's ass, eh?
And what law is that? That would be the Law that requires the FedGov to protect the US from foreign Invasion, Dr. Smith. That would be akin to the same Law that enables a US Citizen the right to protect his homestead from invasion or threat - you know - the one that gives you the right to kick out (or shoot) that Mexican family for squatting in your Queen-Size bedroom.
You're cheating - You spelled "Tweak" "twaek" the first time around. I have to say, your even less coherent than usual. Guess that's what comes from kissing Goldi's ass, eh? Why must the human anatomy and it's worship always be one post away with you?
It's called "Edit".
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.
"Oh, dear..."
It was a figure of speech which I will not bear the responsibility for you taking literally.
If she was wrong, the 9th Circuit will overturn her decision. If Arizona loses again (the judge, BTW, did uphold parts of the law) then the state can appeal to SCOTUS. If they lose there, then perhaps they are wrong - but time will tell.
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.
Hey man, good call!
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
Chuckles... This TOTAL MELTDOWN was brought to you by Hostess Twinkies. Twinkies!!! No Lunchpail should be without them... Guys...welcome...some things are just too important NOT to share...
Hmmmm...so it's actually Captain Erica...
Then why is everyone laughing WITH me, Libby? Except YOU of course.
I missed that memo. commentary by war, could be boiled down to the following: It is a tale Shakespeare,
Alllow me to retort in kind: The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
Oh, and for the record, I've got back-to-back meetings the rest of the afternoon... Just in case anyone else tries to "spin" my leaving...
It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 5, scene 5, Sometimes he goes off the rails. Like on this thread.
he lasted longer then i thought he would, usually he hides behind the bozo as fast as possible.
LOL... NO excuse. Tether your iPad to your ear...
The vice-principal and the guidance counselor?
He caught me in a typo...he won!!!!!
Just in case anyone else tries to "spin" my leaving... whatever erica, everyone knows you're a big pussy and hiding from war just confirms it even more.
If I'm off the rails, Libby, why has he left the station?
You've got some brown stuff hanging off your nose...
He has back to back meetings, give the guy a break.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
You cooked for Freddie?
Is that euphemistic for a double session?
He predicted it ten minutes before it happened. Eric has calcon on bozo so he didn't know the call was hanging right there. It was a good call!
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
It was a good call! As much as I don't like to bozo anyone, sometimes it cuts out on needless distractions. CE at least adds to the site, calcon disrupts...jmo
I think I invited CE here awhile back. I don't follow his every thought but we seem to be on the same wavelength. Kind of like you and I used to...(grin)
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
funny, i remember your foul mouth rants at LP
That gives you something in common...
Riiiiiiight. My entire life revolves around LF (or LP, or even TOS, for that matter)... Dontcha' know? LOL. What does it say about a man, when his existence is measured by how many banal posts he can put on a forum? My life is very busy, and I've no time for government whores. IMHO, they should be the first ones lined up against a wall, and shot. Until that happy day comes, however, I can be content with putting them on bozo, and calling it "done." Trapping war in a blatant lie, just made it fun for me. And now, given the fact that they keep spouting shit, to entice me to take them off bozo, simply confirms my original point: they're attention-whores, who will lie and argue all day long... just so they can be noticed. That's pretty pathetic, when you think about it.
I believe it was you... And for that, I'm glad. We sometimes disagree, but in the end, the expression most applicable is "fair 'nuff." 8^)
That's the function of shills, isn't it?
I think he was talking about you.
Were you ever in the music or song writing business? ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol
That will be in granite above your head some day.
This talk about banal posters has got me wondering where's Badeye? Must be his vacation time in Tel Aviv 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)
Who?
You know, the guy with the business that is failing under Obama that we aren't supposed to talk about?
"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)
Cheap suit...bad glasses...pork chop around the neck? That guy?
And must have so many irate customers he needs to wear a shoulder holster. Or maybe he considers a belt holster unfashionable and suitable only for cops and rednecks.
"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)
I read he used his gun to eliminate excess employees from his failing business. Saves money on the unemployment insurance that way.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
that's funny
LOL
"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)
#42. To: Liberator (#39)
(Edited)
Dwarf will probably cite Jefferson now.
#43. To: Capitalist Eric (#36)
The proof is all there, for you to dig through.
#44. To: war (#43)
Nope.
-- Dean Wormer, Animal House
#45. To: war (#40)
ME: Do you have any recent data to support that hypothesis?
#46. To: Liberator (#38)
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?
#47. To: Liberator, war (#39)
Dwarf will probably cite Jefferson now.
Same as the old jackass boss
#48. To: Capitalist Eric (#44)
You don't want to learn, and I'm not going to spoon-feed you.
#49. To: Capitalist Eric (#44)
(Edited)
Thanks for confirming what I already knew...
#50. To: lucysmom (#48)
(Edited)
#51. To: Capitalist Eric (#45)
(Edited)
Translation: "No."
#52. To: war (#41)
How has he [0bama] put himself above the law?
#53. To: Liberator (#52)
You mean as a border advocate of invading Mexican citizenry over that of Arizonians?
#54. To: war (#42)
You will probably cite one or several of the sexual practices of gay men.
#55. To: war (#51)
You're translating the wrong language.
#56. To: Liberator (#54)
(Edited)
That would be YOU as usual.
#57. To: Liberator (#52)
You mean as a border advocate of invading Mexican citizenry over that of Arizonians?
#58. To: lucysmom (#48)
Sounds 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?
#99. To: Liberator (#98)
Chyeah - "Enforcement" = "Tweaking."
#100. To: war (#94)
(the FedGov's own law)
#101. To: war (#99)
Chyeah - "Enforcement" = "Tweaking."
#102. To: Liberator (#101)
You're cheating - You spelled "Tweak" "twaek" the first time around.
#103. To: Capitalist Eric, war (#76)
No, he prefers to cite "Let's have an American Monarchy" Alexander Hamilton.
#104. To: war (#102)
It's called "Edit".
#105. To: Liberator (#101)
(Edited)
Why must the human anatomy and it's worship always be one post away with you?
#106. To: Liberator (#93)
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.
#107. To: Liberator (#100)
(Edited)
That 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?
#148. To: calcon (#138)
oops, looks like eric is getting his ass handed to him again, can the bozo be far off.
#149. To: Captain LunchPail, Abu el Banat, calcon, Skip Intro, miningold (#146)
(Edited)
#150. To: Captain LunchPail (#146)
(Edited)
#151. To: Liberator (#147)
Outposting Eric with petty BS only means you're trying to convince yourself that you've "won" the debate. He's laughing...HELLO.
#152. To: Liberator (#140)
Dontcha know? We're supposed to hang out and hang on while war cuts and pastes all afternoon.
Told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5, scene 5,
#153. To: Capitain LunchPail (#152)
#154. To: Liberator (#147)
#155. To: Capitalist Eric (#152)
commentary by war, could be boiled down to the following:
#156. To: war (#149)
#157. To: Capitalist Eric (#154)
#158. To: Capitalist Eric (#154)
Oh, and for the record, I've got back-to-back meetings the rest of the afternoon...
#159. To: calcon (#156)
he lasted longer then i thought he would
#160. To: Capitalist Eric, liberator, war, fred mertz (#154)
Oh, and for the record, I've got back-to-back meetings the rest of the afternoon...
#161. To: Liberator (#155)
Sometimes he goes off the rails. Like on this thread.
#162. To: Fred Mertz (#148)
Hey man, good call!
#163. To: war (#161)
#164. To: Murron (#162)
You've got some brown stuff hanging off your nose...
#165. To: Fred Mertz (#163)
#166. To: Murron, calcon (#162)
#167. To: Fred Mertz (#166)
(Edited)
He predicted it ten minutes before it happened. Eric has calcon on bozo so he didn't know the call was hanging right there.
#168. To: Murron (#167)
#169. To: Murron (#167)
calcon disrupts...jmo
#170. To: Fred Mertz (#168)
(Edited)
I don't follow his every thought
#171. To: Liberator (#157)
NO excuse. Tether your iPad to your ear...
#172. To: Fred Mertz (#168)
I think I invited CE here awhile back.
#173. To: Capitalist Eric (#171)
What does it say about a man, when his existence is measured by how many banal posts he can put on a forum?
#174. To: Liberator (#173)
#175. To: Liberator, Captain LunchPail (#173)
(Edited)
What does it say about a man, when his existence is measured by how many banal posts he can put on a forum?
#176. To: war (#175)
That will be in granite above your head some day.
#177. To: mininggold (#176)
#178. To: war (#177)
Who?
#179. To: mininggold (#178)
#180. To: war (#179)
Cheap suit...bad glasses...pork chop around the neck? That guy?
#181. To: calcon (#169)
"funny, i remember your foul mouth rants at LP"
#182. To: mininggold (#180)
And must have so many irate customers he needs to wear a shoulder holster.
#183. To: Murron (#181)
#184. To: war (#175)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]