[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot

Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel

Sen. Grassley announces a whistleblower has exposed the FBI program “Arctic Frost” for targeting 92 Republican groups


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Explosive new evidence shows ruling of AZ judge illegal
Source: Conservative Examiner
URL Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Con ... ows-ruling-of-AZ-judge-illegal
Published: Jul 31, 2010
Author: Anthony G. Martin
Post Date: 2010-08-02 04:09:27 by GreyLmist
Keywords: Constitution, Arizona law, Federal Judge Susan Bolton
Views: 229
Comments: 17

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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: GreyLmist (#0)

The ruling was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Period.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2010-08-02   5:00:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: GreyLmist (#0)

?

The author doesn't know diddly-squat.

"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET

buckeroo  posted on  2010-08-02   11:53:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: buckeroo (#2)

?

The author doesn't know diddly-squat.

?

Why do you think that?

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-02   14:22:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: GreyLmist (#3)

Buck doesn't "think." He has proven that over and over on the 9/11 threads. He gets his talking points from the establishment. Afraid he has turned into an establishment whore.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-08-02   14:25:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#1)

The ruling was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Period.

Yes, it was and the judge who made the ruling with no jurisdiction should be impeached.

4um cross-reference: Impeachment Of Federal Judges

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-02   14:36:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: James Deffenbach (#4)

I don't know where I got the impression before that he was against illegal alien migration. Maybe I misunderstood or maybe he's against the Constitution too.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-02   14:41:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: GreyLmist (#3)

"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."

So what? The case involves no Ambassadors, etc. ...

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."

So what? Who engaged/declared any war? All AZ is doing is throwing the damned illegals out by ensuring they can not have jobs or be harboured.

"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET

buckeroo  posted on  2010-08-02   14:45:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: GreyLmist (#6)

He used to claim to be against illegal aliens overrunning the country. But after his antics on the 9/11 thread and now this bs which is clearly unconstitutional, he has proven that he is the one who doesn't know $#it and I wouldn't believe anything he says. He started misrepresenting the stuff I posted and making claims that he had "won" when all he was doing was taking stuff out of context and lying so I put his dumb @$$ on my clown filter. Him and the buffoon he is always cheering on for lying (aggravator). I don't figure I have missed a thing.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-08-02   14:52:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: buckeroo (#7)

"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."

So what? The case involves no Ambassadors, etc. ...

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."

So what? Who engaged/declared any war? All AZ is doing is throwing the damned illegals out by ensuring they can not have jobs or be harboured. The case doesn't have to involve Ambassadors. It involved the state of Arizona. Arizona could go to war if it has to do that as a protective measure against the invasion. It's the D.C. Federales that want AZ to have about no protective measure legally short of war.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-02   15:19:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: James Deffenbach (#8)

I don't figure I have missed a thing.

I copied his full comments here because I don't understand why he seems perturbed and disagreeable about this article. Challenges the Federales and wins on Constitutional grounds, is what looks to be his reasoning.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-02   15:25:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: GreyLmist (#10)

"So what? The case involves no Ambassadors, etc. ... "

See how disingenuous he is? Apparently he believes, or wants other people to believe, that a case has to include each and every thing mentioned, that it can't be just one of them. Of course that is ridiculous.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-08-02   15:29:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: GreyLmist (#9)

Yes it does. And, as a result, the federal government chose a lessar federal court for the complaint.

"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET

buckeroo  posted on  2010-08-02   15:32:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: buckeroo (#12)

Yes it does. And, as a result, the federal government chose a lessar federal court for the complaint.

No it doesn't and the Federales, as usual, defied the Constitution.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-04   19:15:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: GreyLmist (#9) (Edited)

"The people in power will not disappear voluntarily, giving flowers to the cops just isn't going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window.” - William S Burroughs

Dakmar  posted on  2010-08-04   19:24:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: GreyLmist (#13)

At the heart of the issue is: AZ attempting to override US authority? It has nothing to do with US ambassadors or declarations of war.

As a result, the case is initiated at the lowest federal court level. And it far from unusual.

"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET

buckeroo  posted on  2010-08-04   19:27:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: GreyLmist, buckeroo, christine, Esso, abraxis, Original_Intent, Jethro Tull, Lod, Eric Stratton, wuddidiz, farmfriend (#13)

"The people in power will not disappear voluntarily, giving flowers to the cops just isn't going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window.” - William S Burroughs

Dakmar  posted on  2010-08-04   19:28:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: buckeroo (#15)

At the heart of the issue is: AZ attempting to override US authority? It has nothing to do with US ambassadors or declarations of war.

As a result, the case is initiated at the lowest federal court level. And it far from unusual.

What US authority? The Federal government doesn't have any Constitutional authority over State immigration laws. The Federal government is only authorized to prohibit migration, impose a tax/duty up to $10 for such importation of persons, and to protect the States against invasion -- including invasion of illegal alien migrants.

You are right that this issue has nothing to do with Ambassadors. It has to do with the Federal judge having no jurisdiction whatsoever in this case and that fact is not debatable. Only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and that doesn't depend at all on how often subverters of the Constitution at the Federal level act lost and go to the wrong courthouse. They should be sued for all legal fees incurred by Arizona because of their wrongful SCOTUS detour. It's not debatable either that Arizona certainly can Constitutionally go to war to protect itself from the invaders. So, what is there to debate, in your opinion, buckeroo? "The Divine Right of Kings" for D.C.? We had a Revolutionary War over that sort of premise.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-08-05   1:48:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]