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.
Comments
Brilliantly done Martin! Thank you for pointing all this out!!!!!!
Thank-you, Dianna!
pleASE ADD WITLESS TO THE DESCRIPTION of the Feral govt.
Nutz--Witless is not even the half of it. Not only are they incredibly inept and ignorant, they are also at times deliberate, that is, they sometimes KNOW they are breaking the law. Thus, when you put ignorance together with lawlessness, you have a very dangerous scenario in the making.
Wow, this is incredible. Nice research! I can't wait to see how this plays out!
Sad that our Constitution is so neglected.
Nice thought, but when did the Feds pay any attention to the Constitution. They have been trying to usurp it since it was written, and the ink dried. Even SCOTUS abuses it and their own powers.
Horizon--Sadly, I am inclined to agree. This government--and many before it--have so ignored the Constitution as to make it irrelevant. Jefferson would have hit the reset button long ago. We need to restore it to its rightful place.
Kenya--Thanks for your kind words. But, as Horizon stated above, this is not going to be easy. We have drifted so far away from the legitimate rule of law upon which our nation is founded. I don't actually expect much. Not really totally pessimistic, though, because I hope for the best. Thanks again! :)
Inept is not the word. CORRUPT is.
Diamond--How about corrupt AND inept? Much more dangerous.
Unfortunately the US Constitution only survived for a couple of years. President Washington's "Whiskey War" was clearly unconstitutional; President Jefferson's "Louisiana Purchase" had no constitutional basis.
We have to accept that the government will do whatever it thinks it can get away with - because they have the guns and money - and that what the Constitution actually says - and what it's authors meant - is of absolutely no relevance.
Government of the People, for the Lawyers, by the Lawyers.
When this research is confirmed, do you all send it directly to the Governor and her attorney's to discern? There seems to be a disconnect.... many!
I forwarded it on to our state senator and posted it to a group where he is a member, so hopefully it will help. At the state senate level here, they are usually personally responding to my emails - which is a nice change from DC!
The concept of Federal preemption only applies if Congress actually passes a law preempting the states from acting. Preemption isn't automatic just because there is a federal law. If it did states and cities couldn't have laws regulating sale and consumption of Alcohol, laws against the use of drugs, or use of marijuana and even laws against kidnapping since there are federal laws too.
Remember what happened to our Coutry 235 years ago
Rosalinda--The attorney who cited the specific portions of the Constitution relevant to the case has, according to my understanding, forwarded her assertions to Governor Jan Brewer, her legal team, and to Judge Susan Bolton.
I hope that this development sticks! No mention of it anywhere on news (big surprise). Looking forward to Sunday shows/Monday news cycle... The Constitution has been badly trampled since very early on. However, it is such a powerful document it still held up quite well for 120 years or so. We just need to dial back to about 1920 regarding adherence to the Constitution. Throw in advancements in civil rights and we'd be in a right fine place. We just need to eliminate the statist/progressive scourge from society through education and superior arguments.
Harry--I can only hope somebody in the MSM with some clout will pick it up and run with it.
This presidency is a history lesson in Constitutional crises.
This article quotes articles and no amendment from which it came from..I also question things coming from Canada Free Press,as many of there article as well as Examiner articles have some serious flaws in research!...
Harry our constitution has been trampled for many years!..Just more so now!
Whoever the "astute attorney" was who came up with this, when she finishes law school, she might want to look up the difference between "original jurisdiction" and "exclusive jurisdiction"
The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction in cases in which two states are opposing parties. It has concurrent jurisdiction in cases in which one party is a state. Meaning, this case was properly filed in the lower court.
Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "In all Cases . . . and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." Original jurisdiction - hear it first. It does not say 'in cases in which two states are opposing parties'. It does not say anything about the federal government filing a lawsuit, but then when has the federal government ever filed suit against a STATE?
1776--maybe you need to go to law school or get a degree from a different one. WHERE is that wording in the CONSTITUTION ITSELF???? Or is this just more revisionism of 'case law?'
Anthony,this is good news. Better news would be that Washington and the courts would abide by what is legal. Since many of them have no moral or legal scruples they continue to steam roll over us.
Anthony....GREAT stuff ! I read the Canadian Free Press article also and have come to the conclusion that the author, Ms. Pubilius Huldah(pen name) who is a retired lawyer living in Tennessee, should be nominated to replace Kagan or Eric Holder come 2012. Of course we can't get rid of a sitting Supreme Court justice...unless they retire or die. Maybe we can hire some boys from Chi town to make Kagan a deal....one that she can't refuse !
The wording "exclusive jurisdiction" appears elsewhere in the Constitution several times (you'd think you'd know this). It easily could have been used in this specific clause, if that was the intent of the writers of the Constitution. Instead, they chose "original jurisdiction" for this clause. A case like this COULD be filed with the Supreme Court, by virtue of the "original jurisdiction". But it does not have to be, because the clause did not mandate "exclusive jurisdiction" within the Supreme Court. This is not news. And the "astute" lawyer's article certainly was not news.
I keep a copy of the Constitution at my desk, and after reading this, checked my copy; the quotes are correct. They are there for all to see, so I am not understanding AZTM at all! I am learning that my 3-1/2 x 6-1/2 booklet is invaluable for verification purposes. It sounds pretty simple to me, but then again, I'm not a lawyer...however,if I have it correctly, neither were all the founding fathers and they did a damn good job.
An anonymous lawyer publishing on an online only Canadian right-wing opinion rag?
Real courage of convictions there.
They are predictable in saying that without the American free press, there would be no press at all!
Eric Holder knew exactly what he was doing when he filed that suit. Obama and his administration are dumb like a fox.
What I want to know is this...Is Gov. Brewer going to fire the original attorneys on this suit for AZ and get some constituionally trained lawyers? Ones that would KNOW that Bolton didn't have the authority to rule on this suit? Ones that know the constitution better than Judge Bolton or Eric Holder?
@LMAO, the Canada Free Press is not a right wing Candadian rag. And Publius Huldah who wrote this is a retired lawyer who lives in TN.
1776....It is news if you've never heard of it. It's news if you've never considered it. This applies to lawyers who may or may not know what the he** their talking about....which, from my background and my point of view, is the case more often than not! Under the law everything is up to interpretation, nothing is absolute....that's why we have arguments in the courtroom with judges and juries that hopefully know what their doing !
AZ should send all the illegals to Canada so you can pay for them and watch your innocent people get murdered by them!
in response to :"No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Azz 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."
Please inform the FBI that their stats showing Azz is a much safer state are wrong. Like what does the FBI know? Clearly AZZ is very dangerous, just look who is leading them: a mentally unstable Gov who claims there are headless bodies in Azz showing up but then there are no bodies to be found per the coroner's offices in Azz . She is creating the "crime". This is an election year and she has destroyed her state's economy through mismanagement.
Rod Zeugir in Houston
truth be told.... HUH ? Care to elaborate on your statement(s)?
Rod Zeugir....The Arizona governor is at least standing up to the fed...unlike most of our elected officials in Washington ! She's laying it on the table, forcing OUR government to make a stand. Headless or not, bodies are found, and they don't make it to the coroner's office....try the morgue's in other towns besides Phoenix!A dead body disappears quite easily in the Sonoran Desert due to it's animal life i.e. mountain lions, coyotes, foxes and even insects can dispose of a body in a hurry. Bones get scattered for miles ! I know ....I lived there, and was part of a horse and jeep posse search and rescue team ! Indeed the election year affects all politicians....but the state of Arizona's economy is being destroyed by supporting nearly 500 thousand known illegals in her state in our already down turned national economy !
well, the lawyer who is being referred to here is Publius Huldah. Ms. Public Hairus is affiliated with wellregulatedamericanmilitias dot com ( racist organization). Surprisingly, she comes from the same state as the author of SB 1070. This group view violence very favorably and have posted about overthrowing the Gov.
Seemingly they are not proviolence nor antiminority :
"2) Racism is NOT ok and you will be banned immediately.
3) There will be NO violent threats of any kind posted, you will be banned IMMEDIATELY!" 6) Religious bashing will not be tolerated!!"
yet they have groups to monitor Muslims and other minority groups but you decide. Look them up and read their blogs, view their pics.
They protest for example: "
Alhamdulillah 57,000 people attend Muslim Family Day 2009 nationwide."
So what happened to the Free Speech ? and religous tolerance?
it is funny seeing these Rambo wannabies all dressed up for war. These are the students of Pubic Hairus.
Rod Zeugir in
in response to "PHILesq" When she is saying they have FOUND headless bodies yet her own people can not back her up she is either lying or they are hiding bodies. Which is more realistic? If the coroner's offices are hiding bodies that would be a crime in my part of the country.
Have u read where she claims her dad died fighting Nazis then turns out he was never in the WWII. He died 10 years later. He worked as a civilian in the US during the war.
Her state's economy is in shambles due to her poor leadership. She is a desperate woman and does not care who her re-election hurts. Think about this, how much campaigning is she doing or does she depend on the publicity over the Azz law?
Tick tock tick tock....
Rod Zeugir in Houston
The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.
Now the DoJ is encouraging states NOT to send absentee voting ballots out to our military personnel fighting, and dying for our right as Americans to vote.
This administration is ruthless and will stop at nothing to game the November elections… I’ll bet that no military votes will not get back in time to count…
How in God’s name can we stop these people?
Also, Obama’s staff is working to put together a plan to give amnesty to all illegal aliens WITHOUT Congressional approval…
I don’t care what the polls say… Obama and his backers will do ANYTHING to maintain Congressional control. They’ll find a way to block people from voting, pass some legislation behind closed door that will give him some advantage…
@PHILesq "Under the law everything is up to interpretation, nothing is absolute....that's why we have arguments in the courtroom with judges and juries that hopefully know what their doing !"
That's exactly the point. These self-stlyed "defenders of the Constitution":
a. Pick an individual clause if it fits their cause-of-the-moment
b. Attempt Constitutional analysis without any regard for context within the Constitution (and how other clauses may color the clause they are "examining") OR regard for the intents of the writers, as revealed through the rest of the Constitution OR regard for two centuries of judicial analysis and interpretation (unless it agrees with their own kitchen-table analysis)
That having been said, EVERYONE should do their own study and analysis of the Constitution - in its entirety -- not just an agreeable phrase here or there. But that study should be firmly based in a historical context, a judicial context, and (horrors!) a common sense context.
Rod Zeugir....she was speaking metaphorically, she has gone before the press and on t.v. to explain....maybe you missed that one. 500 thousand illegals make a big impact on any states economy not just in free services such as education, medical, food stamps, fake i.d.'s , fake social security cards...but in crime as well. Whats the problem here....you want to stay away from the facts, the subject of the article and tout unsubstantiated rhetoric more than likely from some leftist M.S.M.! Possibly next time illegal and legal union workers get bussed in from California to Arizona you can join them in waiving the flag of Mexico and the one's with Che Guevara picture on it.As for tolerance of Muslim's or Islam in general...it wasn't the Jews, the Catholic's, the Lutherans, the Buddhist or any other religions that caused 9/11...Muslims do nothing to stop radical Islam other than talk. You, by your comments do nothing to support our nation other than exercise your right to free speech.
@1776 RE: Original Jurisdiction vs. Exclusive Jurisdiction.
Your interpretation makes sense....to a point.
Original jurisdiction, as I understand it, means that the Supreme Court has the right to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to hearing after a lower court has already ruled. Unless I'm mistaken, the Supreme Court doesn't exactly go after cases themselves. They hear cases that are filed with them, right? Why would they have the right to hear a case for the first time, nay, why would they even put it in those words, unless it meant that the any case involving a state must be filed with the Supreme Court?
Rod Zeugir...you state that she( Arz. Gov.) is affiliated with wellregulatedamericanmilitas.com....prove it. I hear that your affiliated with gaynazisforcheguevara.com....prove that you aren't! Arizona's governor could, more than likely, be doing a better job managing with her state without 500 thousand illegals to contend with.... duh !
Look, Obama supporters can argue constitutionality all you want. The bottom-line is that Obama and his backers will stop at nothing to maintain control…
The Department of Justice sued AZ for one reason, to tee up more voters for the democrats… Obama will never secure the border. Why would he do that? He’s encouraging more illegals to come and enjoy the bounties of America!! free education, free healthcare, plentiful food, plenty of work, free everything at the U.S. taxpayers expense…
Immediately after the November elections, the lameduck demos will try to ram through amnesty for alien legislation If that doesn’t work, PObama is already seeking a way to grant amnest to illegals by executive directive, bending existing bureaucracy, to do so… once again "gaming" the system.
live_free_or_die....exactly ! Those that comment here in opposition to Arizona's law,and the new findings that may supersede Obama's rule of law via Clinton's nominated puppet leftist judge, are probably going to be in favor or our vets loosing their rights to being able to vote while overseas fighting terrorist!Obama and his horde of Chicago style thugs he brought into OUR White House are going to do as much as they possibly can between now and November to send OUR nation further into the snake hole from which they all came. In November it's all over for them and they know it. The problem we'll have is resurrecting OUR nation from the collateral damage done by the man without a past and his known thugs !
@Ataal says:
"Unless I'm mistaken, the Supreme Court doesn't exactly go after cases themselves. They hear cases that are filed with them, right"
They can choose to hear cases directly filed with them or not. The bulk of their caseload comes from appeals of lower Federal court cases and appeals of State case involving Federal jurisdiction.
(see part 2)
@Ataal (part2)
"Why would they have the right to hear a case for the first time, nay, why would they even put it in those words, unless it meant that the any case involving a state must be filed with the Supreme Court?"
To give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over these cases *at all*. The powers of the Supreme Court spring from the Constitution, and it was not clear at the time of the writing exactly what cases the SP would have jurisdiction over. The writers felt the need to make it explicit that the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction in these types of cases. No questions asked. HOWEVER, the writers did not feel the need to use the express term “exclusive jurisdiction” which they did several times in the Constitution. “Exclusive” would have made their intent clear that ONLY the SP could hear such cases. Instead, they chose to use “original”
Marie--one of the few weaknesses of our system is that the Framers retained the dreaded 'court precedent' concept from the British. In other words, a clearly-written document like the Constitution is never what the common folk understand it to be, but what the lawyers and courts--political appointees--say it is. This builds up 'court precedent' and 'case law.' While such things are certainly to be considered, the Constitution itself has been shredded just as much by these concepts as any other source of attack. Original intent and clear words always take priority over 'precedent' and 'case law' no matter what the power-hungry lawyers think.
@Ataal (part3)
They left no doubt that the SP had jurisdiction in those cases, but that the jurisdiction was not exclusive, but rather concurrent. Hence this became settled law about 200 years ago.
And think about it for a moment. If every case in which a State is a party could only be heard by the Supreme Court (and if they accepted it), then anytime a citizen was struck by a State truck, or illegally deprived of firearms, or hit by a falling building in a State park, or illegally haraased over State income taxes, -- you would only be able to file to have your case heard (along with a bazillion other such cases) by the one and only Supreme Court (if they felt like it)Instead, the SP shares concurrent jurisdiction with lower Federal courts and you can file your case there.
@ Anthony: "Original intent and clear words always take priority over 'precedent' and 'case law' no matter what the power-hungry lawyers think."
Exactly. And if the writers of the Constitution wanted to limit these cases to only the Supreme Court, they could and would have used the clear words "exclusive jurisdiction" (which they used elsewhere in the Constitution) instead of "original jurisdiction"
@1776 - The writers of the Constitution DID USE THE CLEAR WORDS "ORIGINAL JURISDICTION". Original jurisdiction - Hear It First. Look it up - Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Are you playing word games? Original jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction do NOT have the same meaning. Exclusive jurisdiction means the Supreme Court can Review decisions reached in lower courts. Original jurisdiction means the Supreme Court hears the case FIRST.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!