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: 145162
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 (1-34) not displayed.
.
.
.
#35. To: lucysmom (#34)
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!
Comments (75 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou 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."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]