Arizona’s illegal immigration law—the judge violated the Constitution; NOT Arizona
I was searching the internet early this morning looking for a petition in favor of and in support of the Arizona illegal immigration law. I found one and plan to post it next week. I also found an article from a site which supports my earlier post—Arizona’s illegal immigration law and JUDICIAL TYRANNY, July 28, 2010—in which I said the U.S. Constitution prohibits an inferior federal court judge from dealing with the case since the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. This should be obvious to anyone who can read and who has read the U.S. Constitution. However, it is always nice when an attorney supports what I had previously written.
Therefore, I am posting that article today with a few comments from me including another relevant section of the U.S. Constitution. It’s amazing what people can learn just by actually reading the document. Maybe it should be required reading for each judge before he/she accepts any case and then tries an accepted case. It seems some of them need refresher courses on what the United States Constitution actually says!!!
The article is as written except for putting it into my format. The article:
From http://www.resistnet.com/
“ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
Posted by George Hathaway on July 30, 2010 at 2:05 pm in Constitutional Issues
Courtesy of today’s Canada Free Press. We should press Arizona to get a trial (not appeal) with SCOTUS.
ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
By Publius Huldah Thursday, July 29, 2010
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 Ours 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….”
‘Original’ jurisdiction means the power to conduct the ‘trial’ of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a ‘trial’ is—you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.
The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:
State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.
Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you. (EXACTLY!—my addition)
See where it says, ‘State of Arizona’? And ‘Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity’? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme ‘original Jurisdiction’, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice). (EXACTLY!—my addition)
In Federalist No. 81 (13th paragraph), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:
‘... Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ‘in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.’
Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….’
Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it! (EXACTLY!—my addition)
So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:
1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.
2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.
A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law ‘extraordinary writ’: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:
‘....the fact still remains that ‘only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.’’ ... (paragraph 13)
When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. (EXACTLY! And in this case, I would suggest that she be impeached and convicted of violating her oath of office under the ‘good behavior’ clause since her actions are an extremely egregious violation of her oath. Every State should be concerned when one inferior court judge believes that she has the power to enjoin a State from enforcing its own law!—my addition)
She is specifically stripped—by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2—of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.
For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20. Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal to protect each of the States against invasion. (The exact wording from the Constitution is as follows: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion [Is there any question that Arizona as well as other States are being invaded by illegals?—my addition]; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.” And yet, an appointed inferior federal judge has enjoined a duly elected State government NOT to enforce a law duly passed by its duly elected legislature and has further said through her ruling that, even though the federal government is NOT protecting the State of Arizona from invasion by illegals, the State CAN NOT do so on its own! WHAT UTTER, CONTEMPTIBLE NONSENSE!!! The U.S. Constitution has been turned upside down by both the Barack Hussein Obama Administration and this delusional judge!—my addition) Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty—it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country. (EXACTLY—my addition)
OK, counselors—Go for it!”
I was searching the internet early this morning looking for a petition in favor of and in support of the Arizona illegal immigration law. I found one and plan to post it next week. I also found an article from a site which supports my earlier post—Arizona’s illegal immigration law and JUDICIAL TYRANNY, July 28, 2010—in which I said the U.S. Constitution prohibits an inferior federal court judge from dealing with the case since the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. This should be obvious to anyone who can read and who has read the U.S. Constitution. However, it is always nice when an attorney supports what I had previously written.
Therefore, I am posting that article today with a few comments from me including another relevant section of the U.S. Constitution. It’s amazing what people can learn just by actually reading the document. Maybe it should be required reading for each judge before he/she accepts any case and then tries an accepted case. It seems some of them need refresher courses on what the United States Constitution actually says!!!
The article is as written except for putting it into my format. The article:
From http://www.resistnet.com/
“ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
Posted by George Hathaway on July 30, 2010 at 2:05 pm in Constitutional Issues
Courtesy of today’s Canada Free Press. We should press Arizona to get a trial (not appeal) with SCOTUS.
ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
By Publius Huldah Thursday, July 29, 2010
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 Ours 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….”
‘Original’ jurisdiction means the power to conduct the ‘trial’ of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a ‘trial’ is—you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.
The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:
State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.
Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you. (EXACTLY!—my addition)
See where it says, ‘State of Arizona’? And ‘Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity’? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme ‘original Jurisdiction’, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice). (EXACTLY!—my addition)
In Federalist No. 81 (13th paragraph), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:
‘... Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ‘in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.’
Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….’
Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it! (EXACTLY!—my addition)
So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:
1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.
2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.
A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law ‘extraordinary writ’: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:
‘....the fact still remains that ‘only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.’’ ... (paragraph 13)
When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. (EXACTLY! And in this case, I would suggest that she be impeached and convicted of violating her oath of office under the ‘good behavior’ clause since her actions are an extremely egregious violation of her oath. Every State should be concerned when one inferior court judge believes that she has the power to enjoin a State from enforcing its own law!—my addition)
She is specifically stripped—by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2—of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.
For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20. Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal to protect each of the States against invasion. (The exact wording from the Constitution is as follows: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion [Is there any question that Arizona as well as other States are being invaded by illegals?—my addition]; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.” And yet, an appointed inferior federal judge has enjoined a duly elected State government NOT to enforce a law duly passed by its duly elected legislature and has further said through her ruling that, even though the federal government is NOT protecting the State of Arizona from invasion by illegals, the State CAN NOT do so on its own! WHAT UTTER, CONTEMPTIBLE NONSENSE!!! The U.S. Constitution has been turned upside down by both the Barack Hussein Obama Administration and this delusional judge!—my addition) Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty—it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country. (EXACTLY—my addition)
OK, counselors—Go for it!”
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:41 PM
<< Home