Posted on 08/24/2010 5:49:46 PM PDT by Grim
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.
Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
Wonder if this applies to the recent gay marriage ruling in California. Either way, this administration is shaping up to be the most incompetent bunch of losers EVER.
Just damn!
It is astonishing to learn what a long life B.S. has. When the US created federal courts the SCOTUS no longer had exclusive jurisdiction of such cases and the case was properly brought and heard in Az.
We have hashed this thru at some length here but it keeps coming back over and again.
Key word...Lawyers.
It did not take this lawyer to point this out! There were a bunch of FReepers who were on top of this the moment the decision came out of that judge's courtroom!
Bad Link, Can’t find story
and it is costing us our liberty and fortunes.
|
Kinda depends on what is meant by "appellate jurisdiction"...if the establishment of lower ranked appellate courts is within the jurisdictional aegis of the SCOTUS then the argument may be invalid
I'm going to let the lawyers fight this out.
This was refuted by multiple FReepers, including several who were lawyers.
We are in a permanent Constitutional crisis—no one gives a damn about it.
I cannot believe this. Remember Obama team was going through its due diligence in presenting their suit? It was in the NY TImes for 2 weeks straight.
How come Mark Levin didn’t catch this?
AZ also has such good people as Sheriff Joe. Let a federal ape try any nonesense in his county and they’ll be wearing pink and eating green balogne.
The Governor should vacate the decision herself then and reinstate the law.
Clearly she has the authority under the Constitution.
Seems pretty straight forward to me...but I’m not an attorney.
Before I accept anything from Canada Free Press, I want some kind of acknowledgement from someone who is...shall I say, credible?
Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy, an incredibly well-regarded and learned conservative law professor breaks it down in the most boring yet complete answer to "why" it was filed and heard where it was heard.
His explanation may be found below...
Essentially, this has already been decided in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 396–402 (1821). This judge, a Federal District Judge may not ignore Supreme Court precedent. It's already settled law - she must hear the case. Her decision is wrong - and I'm sure she'll be eventually overturned, but her decision to hear the case is not.
Just when we NEED Congressman Billybob!!
1) One can acknowledge the crisis -- but on the evidence provided in the first paragraph alone are we at war, declared or otherwise? I think not. Criminal activity? Yes. Complicity by some of our good friends to the south? Yes.
2) HOWEVER, given the Mexican government's complicity with such documents as the alleged "how to cross the border" comics? Assuming they are true, we could be dealing with an undeclared war, depending on a number of factors.
3) Does this arise to an invasion by governmentally-armed and trained forces acting under the orders of that government? I think not; Iran invasion scenario goes too far.
I don't have answers, I'm just challenging an assertion or two here -- I don't think the case has been completely made. Other than the assertion that "this administration is shaping up to be the most incompetent bunch of losers EVER."
And we all will pay the price for that.
It's hard to maintain stability when a neighboring region descends into complete and total lawlessness. If you don't have strong borders, you're in for a lot of trouble.
Then there is Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.