Eric Holder erred in bringing the case to the AZ judge.
(Reposted from Examiner.com)
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment