Wrong Court Ruled on AZ Immigration Law!!

[Wullie]

Interesting.

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.


(The "well-versed" attorney here is one with a comprehension of American Law equal to that of any fourth grader of 100 years ago.)

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.


(Has this judge been fired for her incompetence?)

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.

(Has Holder been terminated?)



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.

[Pudfark]

That's an inflammatory remark.....that I like....Much like the mosque thingy.....Obama just seems to have to personally jump in and subvert due process....that which in this case, would have allowed it to proceed through the court system and end up in the Supreme Court........Good call Wullie.

[Daiichidoku]

the first part;

not being familiar wit h14th amendment, isnt that basically make it unlawful for a state to have an immigration law, as this is "provided" by the feds?

is this the grounds upon which the feds are trying to stop AZ imm law?

why isnt the fed going to the supreme court on this? has it already done so, and the 9th circuit san fran is appealing THAT decision? if so, give up, fed, lol

no, i havent bothered researching it, this is why im asking now










the second part;

it says War...not mexican civilians crossing border illegally, or drug cartels up to nogoodnik

War. it is a clearly specified set of conditions to be met, and to be declared by appro agency

as bad as it may be for AZ, War is certainly outside the scope of what is going on, and invalid

NOT the same, by far, as Iranian navy rolling into Charleston

[fatman]

the second part;

it says War...not mexican civilians crossing border illegally, or drug cartels up to nogoodnik

War. it is a clearly specified set of conditions to be met, and to be declared by appro agency

as bad as it may be for AZ, War is certainly outside the scope of what is going on, and invalid

NOT the same, by far, as Iranian navy rolling into Charleston

Well i know its not all of them but enough of them are crossing the border under arms

[Wullie]

Well i know its not all of them but enough of them are crossing the border under arms

+1

With the blessing of their bought and paid for by drug money government.

[Pudfark]

it is a clearly specified set of conditions to be met, and to be declared by appro agency

WTF is that supposed to mean? What is a "appro agency"? I know you ain't from here...just don't understand why ya gotta prove it...........

Fatman ain't from here either...at least he asks questions to determine a better understanding of things....then he states his opinion...sometimes I don't agree with him...I always respect his interest...and appreciate his willing to understand.....even, if we should disagree.....

In this case, another +1 Fatman...from me......

[ruggbutt]

I gotta agree, Fatman understands. IIRC Fatman is in Oz. Half of my squadron are Aussies and they "get it" as well.

[Daiichidoku]

Well i know its not all of them but enough of them are crossing the border under arms

+1

With the blessing of their bought and paid for by drug money government.

way to ignore my question and go into [like you havent been the whole time?] rah-rah mode

[Daiichidoku]

it is a clearly specified set of conditions to be met, and to be declared by appro agency

WTF is that supposed to mean? What is a "appro agency"? I know you ain't from here...just don't understand why ya gotta prove it...........

Fatman ain't from here either...at least he asks questions to determine a better understanding of things....then he states his opinion...sometimes I don't agree with him...I always respect his interest...and appreciate his willing to understand.....even, if we should disagree.....

In this case, another +1 Fatman...from me......

ok...you really are stupid, or out to tickle yourself over being sooooooo witty

["you ain't from here...just don't understand why ya gotta prove it".. Fatman ain't from here either...at least he asks questions to determine a better understanding of things

wtf? you idiot, like Fatman, i was asking questions to determine a better understanding of things..guess you chose to miss that in your rah-rah fervor, otherwise you wouldnt post that
in the first place

then he states his opinion

guess what moron? i did also! in IMO, the fed should drop the case (depending); "give up, fed" was what i wrote

again, you are an idiot or chose to not address that, despite your claim, making you a douche (more opinion!)

sometimes I don't agree with him...I always respect his interest

bullshit; what have you not agreed with Fatman over, that has been posted by both parties?

if Fatman espoused sentiment closer to that of Slick, IMO (even MORE opinion!) you would treat him similarly, that is, with very little visible respect in his interest









im sure you will not address that i asked questions and gave opinion, and you stated that i didnt

you will likely obfusicate and pick on something else, or take the dismissal route

you dont have to like me, certainly i dont like your bigoted arse, but cut the bullshit, hey?

[Daiichidoku]

Well i know its not all of them but enough of them are crossing the border under arms

so?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion

An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself.

The term invasion usually denotes a strategic endeavor of substantial magnitude; because the goals of an invasion are usually large-scale and long-term, a sizeable force is needed to hold territory, and protect the interests of the invading entity. Smaller-scale, tactical cross-border actions, such as skirmishes, sorties, raids, infiltrations or guerrilla warfare, are not generally considered invasions






btw, heres the full version:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


so AZ also cannot claim duties by tonnage for all the ships using its ports, or have a Navy
AZ also cannot have any Troops, or an Army, although they are allowed to keep HG and state militia, but only under federal oversight