Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    JamesGarfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    41

    Judge Susan Bolton had no authority to rule on AZ's SB1070?

    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 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.

    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.

    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. And there are established procedures by which Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton can be removed from her position as a result of her violating her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America ..

    PRAY for AMERICA!!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,757
    I've seen this for the last couple weeks

    My Question

    Constitutional lawyers have been all over this for Arizona

    WHY ARE THEY NOT JUMPING ALL OVER THIS ?

    If this is true they need to declare the judges ruling null and void and begin right now enforcing the full law.

    WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING THIS?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,757
    Also

    What constitutionally is the meaning of "INVASION"?

    I would contend that an invasion DOES NOT have to involve a uniformed army with weapons.

    I would consider an "army" of millions of illegal foreign nationals in this country as an "invasion" by a hostile neighbor.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    x tx now Mt
    Posts
    215
    I also wonder why this went to a fed court and not to the Supreme Court.

    (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. ) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

    Even this 11th Amendment states that even controversies between Citizens of a Foreign State and the state would have to go directly to the Supreme Court.

    [/b]
    "One Flag ... One Language ... ONE COUNTRY"....... Teddy Roosevelt

  5. #5
    Senior Member draindog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    864
    the state of AZ should ignore bolton and enact the 1070 law in full force. this should be VIRAL. some one send this to gov brewer, she can really need to see.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    310
    "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."


    Does this article even apply anymore? Foreign governments enjoy soverign immunity and can't be sued. Diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity so they can't be detained or charged with crimes.

    In this article when they reference a state are they meaning a foreign gvernment? The reason I question the meaning is this article talks about foreign issues such as Ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, so it appears that the meaning of state may be of a foreign state and not a US State.

    Some soverign countries are referred to as states and not countries. My first reaction is that it refers to foreign matters.

    My second reaction is from a logical standpoint that if a US State and the Federal Government were in a dispute over the legalities of one ot the other action that the entity to settle this matter would be the highest court in the land which is the US Supreme court.

    Having federal courts hear a matter that the federal government has an vested interest in is akin to asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

    The US Supreme Court is independent of the federal government and the states so logically it would be the entity to hear and settle disputes since constitutionally their ruling is the final and and the law of the land.

    So, I think it is certainly worthy that legal scholars and attorneys look closer at this article as their may be a legal basis and arguement.

    Couldn't somebody just e-mail the US Supreme Court and ask them? Seems pretty simple.

    This is very interesting though.
    "Where is our democracy if the federal government can break the laws written and enacted by our congress on behalf of the people?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •