Thread: Fed Court makes crap up in PA`s Immigration Relief Act case

Originally Posted by Myah

johnwk do you know if Hazleton, pa can they appeal higher? Are They?

Hazleton’s mayor Lou Barletta to take immigration law to Supreme Court


SEE:
Pa. mayor to take immigration law to Supreme Court

“Appeals courts are split on whether states and municipalities have the right to enforce laws dealing with immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over a 2007 Arizona law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants“


Hazleton’s law has nothing to do with setting the requirements which an alien must meet to become “naturalizedâ€

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

I am not that smart but the word Naturalization would mean the power to grant citizenship to foreigners, and nothing more.

I think both of us realize that words have meaning. I also believe our founding fathers, judging from what they said during our nations first Naturalization ACT, would agree with you about “Naturalizationâ€

Originally Posted by johnwk

SEE: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Town’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law


The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration.

Talking about exclusive power, The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has no jurisdiction in the case!

According to our Constitution this case should not be in District Court. The wording in our Constitution is crystal clear:


[b][i]“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a [u]State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.â€

in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."

I'll bet they're interpreting this to mean it's possible for the SC to step aside and allow it to be heard in the lower court first.

I keep reading it and really have a hard time understanding how it's possible to have both "Original" yet "Not Exclusive Jurisdiction."

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."

I'll bet they're interpreting this to mean it's possible for the SC to step aside and allow it to be heard in the lower court first.

I keep reading it and really have a hard time understanding how it's possible to have both "Original" yet "Not Exclusive Jurisdiction."

The establishment just loves to make crap up! But, let us see what Hamilton says about the issue of original jurisdiction in Federalist Paper No. 81:


"Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal."


I think it is crystal clear what our founding fathers intended!


JWK


[b][i]Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpretâ€

John you should be a History or Poly Sci Prof. I'd sign up for your class or audit it if I could.

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

John you should be a History or Poly Sci Prof. I'd sign up for your class or audit it if I could.

I appreciate your kind words. Unfortunately, the question remains as to why Arizona has not filed in the Supreme Court.

JWK