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: 145100
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 (1-85) not displayed.
.
.
.
#86. To: war (#82)
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.
Comments (126 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]