Arizona’s illegal immigration law and JUDICIAL TYRANNY!!!


I’m changing direction again today. Earlier today, a federal judge made some rulings in relation to the Arizona illegal immigration law. Today, my take on those decisions:

One federal judge, appointed by a past President—Bill Clinton—with the approval of a majority of the Senate and holding her office “during good Behaviour” (Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution), has again usurped the powers of a State by issuing an injunction against the State of Arizona ordering the State of Arizona not to enforce sections of a law duly passed by the people of the State of Arizona through the people of Arizona’s elected representatives. Where in the Constitution of the United States does a federal judge have the power and authority to issue an injunction against a State ordering that State not to enforce a duly passed law of that State? ANSWER: NOWHERE!!!

Article III of the United States Constitution is the shortest of the three articles that establishes the three branches of the federal government Therefore, I am going to quote the article in its entirety. I am taking the liberty of numbering the judicial power listed in Section 2 of Article III. Otherwise I am quoting the article as printed.

“Article III

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

1) The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

2) to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

3) to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

4) to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

5) to Controversies between two or more States;

6) between a State and Citizens of another State—NOTE: This provision was changed by the Eleventh Amendment.

7) between Citizens of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects].—NOTE: This provision was changed by the Eleventh Amendment, but only the section in brackets. Since the Eleven Amendment does not pertain to the Arizona immigration law, I am not quoting that amendment.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a STATE (my capitalization for emphasis—my addition) shall be a party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the state where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

First of all, and extremely important although ignored by the Courts, who has jurisdiction in a federal court of law when a State is a party to the procedure? The correct, Constitutional answer is that the SUPREME COURT has jurisdiction! That’s what original jurisdiction means. The case is to begin and end at the United States Supreme Court. Note that the Constitution says in Article III, section 2, ¶ 2; “In all Cases affecting … , and those in which a State shall be a party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” Period! This provision has NEVER been changed by Constitutional Amendment! NEVER!!! Therefore, this case, since the State of Arizona is affected by the ruling and is a party involved in the case, should not even be in this court. This should begin and end in the United States Supreme Court. Period! This lower court DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION!!!

Second, absolutely NOTHING, let me repeat this statement—ABSOLUTELY NOTHING—in the United States Constitution gives this court or any federal court, including the Supreme Court, the power to issue an injunction against a State forbidding that State to enforce a duly passed law of the State when it has not been ruled to be unconstitutional. In fact, any law passed by any duly elected body is by definition Constitutional until and unless ruled to be unconstitutional. Again, this judge is tyrannically issuing a ruling that she has NO Constitutional power to issue or enforce. SHE HAS NO SUCH POWER!!!

Thirdly, she obviously is violating the Constitution of the United States and is obviously not performing her duties in any manner remotely resembling any reasonable concept of “good behavior.” Therefore, every State should demand and Congress should immediately institute the procedures necessary to impeach and convict her for NOT fulfilling her oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

JUDICIAL TYRANNY is alive and well in the United States. And it is, because we the people have not demanded and have not required that the Constitution of the United States be enforced as written! When are we going to demand and require obeying the Constitution of the United States by all people, including government people?