Subject: The Canadians and Brits Know.............
Interesting. I could not find anything on Snopes.com concerning this.
Rutt 
-CLR-
-CLR-
Does anybody in this country ever read the U.S. Constitution anymore? The Canadians and Brits seem to know more about it than anyone here.
Et al:
This was sent to me by a fellow who lives in Maine near the Canadian border.
Et al:
This was sent to me by a fellow who lives in Maine near the Canadian border.
P.S. U.S. Constitution saves the day! Why won't the feds read the constitution before they file a lawsuit against a sovereign state?
Explosive evidence shows ruling of AZ judge illegal...
July 31, 10:07 AM
Conservative ExaminerAnthony G. Martin
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.
July 31, 10:07 AM
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.
(Daniel Bayer/CBS News via Getty Images). The inept U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder.
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 of our Constitution 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.
"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.
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."
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, 115 bodies recovered in AZ entry routes, 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 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.
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.
This missive must be circulated around the USA, we must all get involved this is OUR case too.
Posts
9 comments:
Wow. Just freaking wow. They actually believe this stuff. They actually believe that judges just wander around, ruling on whatever cases they happen to come across. Like no one in the entire judicial system would have any idea bout jurisdictional rules.
And no, Arizona is not at war, nor is Mexico invading them. Anyone who thinks so knows nothing of war.
I've said it before and I'll say
it again:
If you go down this road, you will
be very, very sorry.
The first few years will be all
sunshine: 'no more "illegals"!
Yay!' So what if a few legal immigrants get chewed up by the
system.
But here's the rub: it won't
stop there. It never does.
http://gulagbound.com/2064/anthony-g-martin-perhaps-it-is-time-to-resurrect-joe-mccarthy
Warning: do not link if you don't want your brain to implode. I didn't run the video but just seeing a still of Anthony G. Martin, who wrote this pile of steaming shite, was enough to make me puke.
Note in the link provided that Anthony G. Martin wishes to "ressurect" Joe McCarthy. Says it all.
BTW, this article is riddled with lies, falsehoods and complete bunk. Anyone who reads it and believes it is a totally brain-dead idiot.
Wish these jerkwards would put their considerable energy towards solving real problems and being productive, rather than fantasizing about bull hockey.
Blah blah Constitution ripped up! blah Mexico at war with US!! blah blah Judges out of control! blah blah our rights are gone! blah blah Dems are bad! blah get freaked out over nothing! blah blah Muslims! blah
lather, rinse, repeat
booga booga
You know, I wish all of these wingnuts who blather on about the Constitution would actually shift themselves to read some analysis of it; I'm betting most of them aren't lawyers or law professors, and yet they always seem to think that they and they alone have the "correct" analysis.
EXPLANATION:
This one is a little tricky, although you'd think that people who claimed to be such fans of the constitution would actually, you know, familiarize themselves with it a bit more.
Appellate jurisdiction: Means the Supreme Court can ONLY hear the case after it has been run through the federal judicial system. Ie. the Supreme Court is the last stop of the case.
Original jurisdiction: Means that the Supreme Court CAN hear the case as the original court in which the case is filed, not just as the final stop.
Neither of these is the same as Exclusive jurisdiction, which is what the wingnuts seem to be confused about. Exclusive jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the ONLY court allowed to hear the facts of the case and is the first, last, and only stop.
Since this case involves a state, the Supreme Court has Appellate jurisdiction. Since the feds filed the case, they get to choose where they'd like to start with it. As such, they chose the appropriate federal court of appeals, in this case the 9th.
Brought to you by 2 years at the George Washington University's Graduate Criminal Justice Program
Marc - see also West Virginia v. USA, which also affirms that the correct venue for a Federal suit against a State is Federal court. District in that case, IIRC.
Good heavens! Marc & Mike bring up facts? What are you two?? Commies? Facts like that are for pussies, you liberal wimps.
Conservatives just want a convenient fictional bedtime story that can make them all mad at liberals and brown people and stuff.
Fact? Guh!
P.S. Factually, Marc & Mike are correct. John Bircher, Anthony Martin, is utterly wrong. But don't let that stop any rightwinger from getting mad...
These guys have never read the Constitution because it isn't written in 10 different fonts and colors. It can't keep their attention.
Post a Comment