Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Georgia, the Federal Courts, and the U.S. Constitution
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110620/4b8d3b8b-f682-42bd-b22d-0836dd9f2007
“US judge hears arguments on Georgia immigration law
KATE BRUMBACK
From Associated Press
June 20, 2011 2:02 PM EDT
ATLANTA (AP)—Civil liberties groups argued Monday that Georgia’s law cracking down on illegal immigration should not take effect until a lawsuit challenging it as unconstitutional is resolved, and a judge said he likely would rule on that request before the law takes effect.
The lawsuit asks a judge to find the law unconstitutional and to prevent its enforcement. U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash also heard arguments from a lawyer for the state, who said the lawsuit should be dismissed. Thrash repeatedly questioned Senior Assistant Attorney General Devon Orland, with the exchange sometimes bordering on testy.”
“At the end of the hearing, Thrash said he needs more time to consider the arguments because the legal and constitutional issues at play are complex. He expects to decide on the issue before July 1, when most parts of the law take effect.
‘We’re optimistic,’ Jadwat (Omar Jadwat is with the American Civil Liberties Union—my addition.) said after the hearing. ‘The judge seemed to grasp a lot of the practical problems posed by this law.’” (Since when did the “practical problems” of a State law become a reason for declaring a State law Unconstitutional in an inferior federal court?—my addition)
“Georgia’s law has provisions similar to those in laws enacted in Arizona, Utah and Indiana.
A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s law last year after the U.S. Department of Justice sued, arguing that only the federal government can regulate immigration. A federal appeals court judge upheld the decision, and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A federal judge also has temporarily blocked Utah’s law, citing similarities to the most controversial parts of Arizona’s law. A hearing is set for mid-July to determine if the law can take effect. And in Indiana, a federal judge is set to hear arguments Monday over whether that state’s law can take effect next month.”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
“Population of Arizona, 2010 = 6,392,017
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 24.6%
Population, 2000 = 5,130,607”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13000.html
“Population of Georgia, 2010 = 9,687,653
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 18.3%
Population, 2000 = 8,186,781”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html
“Population of Indiana, 2010 = 6,483,802
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 6.6%
Population, 2000 = 6,080,520”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49000.html
“Population of Utah, 2010 = 2,763,885
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 23.8%
Population, 2000 = 2,233,204”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
“United States
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 9.7%
The current situation within four different States is that four different State laws dealing with a State problem—how to handle the thousands of people who are living in each of the four States illegally—have each been challenged in four different inferior federal courts. Each State through their Constitutionally elected State legislatures with the approval of each State’s governor passed laws to try to deal with the problem WITHIN their individual State boundaries where the State has jurisdiction.
Each State has been sued in an inferior federal court. The inferior federal court in each case has been asked to rule that a duly and legally passed State law is Unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution.
In the case of Arizona, one unelected inferior federal court judge determined that portions of a duly and legally passed law was Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge rejected portions of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 6 million citizens of the State of Arizona. 1 verse 6,392,017. And the 1 has the power to decide for 6,392,017?
In the case of Georgia, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 9 million citizens of the State of Georgia. 1 verse 9,687,653. And the 1 has the power to decide for 9,687,653?
In the case of Indiana, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 6 million citizens of the State of Indiana. 1 verse 6,483,802. And the 1 has the power to decide for 6,483,802?
In the case of Utah, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 2 million citizens of the State of Utah. 1 verse 2,763,885. And the 1 has the power to decide for 2,763,885?
But wait you say, that’s the process that the U.S. Constitution requires. “We have to follow the Constitution!” But wait I say, that’s NOT the process that the U.S. Constitution requires. The present process is a violation of the very Constitution these inferior federal court judges have sworn to uphold. “We should follow the Constitution! At the present time, we are NOT!!!”
For as I’ve said repeatedly, NO inferior federal court judge has jurisdiction over a State. NONE! The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “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.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!
It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!
It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110620/4b8d3b8b-f682-42bd-b22d-0836dd9f2007
“US judge hears arguments on Georgia immigration law
KATE BRUMBACK
From Associated Press
June 20, 2011 2:02 PM EDT
ATLANTA (AP)—Civil liberties groups argued Monday that Georgia’s law cracking down on illegal immigration should not take effect until a lawsuit challenging it as unconstitutional is resolved, and a judge said he likely would rule on that request before the law takes effect.
The lawsuit asks a judge to find the law unconstitutional and to prevent its enforcement. U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash also heard arguments from a lawyer for the state, who said the lawsuit should be dismissed. Thrash repeatedly questioned Senior Assistant Attorney General Devon Orland, with the exchange sometimes bordering on testy.”
“At the end of the hearing, Thrash said he needs more time to consider the arguments because the legal and constitutional issues at play are complex. He expects to decide on the issue before July 1, when most parts of the law take effect.
‘We’re optimistic,’ Jadwat (Omar Jadwat is with the American Civil Liberties Union—my addition.) said after the hearing. ‘The judge seemed to grasp a lot of the practical problems posed by this law.’” (Since when did the “practical problems” of a State law become a reason for declaring a State law Unconstitutional in an inferior federal court?—my addition)
“Georgia’s law has provisions similar to those in laws enacted in Arizona, Utah and Indiana.
A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s law last year after the U.S. Department of Justice sued, arguing that only the federal government can regulate immigration. A federal appeals court judge upheld the decision, and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A federal judge also has temporarily blocked Utah’s law, citing similarities to the most controversial parts of Arizona’s law. A hearing is set for mid-July to determine if the law can take effect. And in Indiana, a federal judge is set to hear arguments Monday over whether that state’s law can take effect next month.”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
“Population of Arizona, 2010 = 6,392,017
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 24.6%
Population, 2000 = 5,130,607”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13000.html
“Population of Georgia, 2010 = 9,687,653
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 18.3%
Population, 2000 = 8,186,781”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html
“Population of Indiana, 2010 = 6,483,802
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 6.6%
Population, 2000 = 6,080,520”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49000.html
“Population of Utah, 2010 = 2,763,885
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 23.8%
Population, 2000 = 2,233,204”
From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
“United States
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 9.7%
The current situation within four different States is that four different State laws dealing with a State problem—how to handle the thousands of people who are living in each of the four States illegally—have each been challenged in four different inferior federal courts. Each State through their Constitutionally elected State legislatures with the approval of each State’s governor passed laws to try to deal with the problem WITHIN their individual State boundaries where the State has jurisdiction.
Each State has been sued in an inferior federal court. The inferior federal court in each case has been asked to rule that a duly and legally passed State law is Unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution.
In the case of Arizona, one unelected inferior federal court judge determined that portions of a duly and legally passed law was Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge rejected portions of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 6 million citizens of the State of Arizona. 1 verse 6,392,017. And the 1 has the power to decide for 6,392,017?
In the case of Georgia, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 9 million citizens of the State of Georgia. 1 verse 9,687,653. And the 1 has the power to decide for 9,687,653?
In the case of Indiana, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 6 million citizens of the State of Indiana. 1 verse 6,483,802. And the 1 has the power to decide for 6,483,802?
In the case of Utah, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 2 million citizens of the State of Utah. 1 verse 2,763,885. And the 1 has the power to decide for 2,763,885?
But wait you say, that’s the process that the U.S. Constitution requires. “We have to follow the Constitution!” But wait I say, that’s NOT the process that the U.S. Constitution requires. The present process is a violation of the very Constitution these inferior federal court judges have sworn to uphold. “We should follow the Constitution! At the present time, we are NOT!!!”
For as I’ve said repeatedly, NO inferior federal court judge has jurisdiction over a State. NONE! The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “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.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!
It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!
It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 6:06 AM
<< Home