The Wrong Court Ruled On Arizona Law

[Sandra]

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!

[Sandra]

I have had this for awhile and when cleaning out some file, decided to add this to the Arizona group. Amazing how it seems no one knows what is in The Constitution.